From: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Different IRQ mapping from 2.6.27->2.6.28?
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:27:32 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <495A5A04.2070502@shaw.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812300714190.11356@p34.internal.lan>
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Had a quick question, prior to 2.6.28 the 915 controller always shared
> irq 16
> with the 3ware controller and possibly usb.
>
> $ cat /proc/interrupts
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
> 0: 829 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge timer
> 1: 2 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 9: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi
> 12: 4 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 16: 426034 626134 1351627 1342735 IO-APIC-fasteoi
> 3w-9xxx, uhci_hcd:usb3
> 17: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi
> pata_marvell
> 18: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi
> ehci_hcd:usb1, uhci_hcd:usb7
> 19: 1375 341 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi
> ohci1394, uhci_hcd:usb6
> 21: 297232 2133384 741689 1238741 IO-APIC-fasteoi
> uhci_hcd:usb4, eth1
> 22: 205140 294852 1063046 234799 IO-APIC-fasteoi HDA
> Intel, eth2
> 23: 332083 3050489 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi
> ehci_hcd:usb2, uhci_hcd:usb5
> 375: 376161 1019158 163030 68967 PCI-MSI-edge ahci
> 376: 56580 2533694 390596 2673511 PCI-MSI-edge eth0
> 377: 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge
> i915@pci:0000:00:02.0
> NMI: 0 0 0 0 Non-maskable interrupts
> LOC: 213813409 215685728 213463846 214264243 Local timer interrupts
> RES: 62066 64812 41593 54593 Rescheduling interrupts
> CAL: 1425 1476 1445 606 Function call interrupts
> TLB: 96105 94258 117036 107468 TLB shootdowns
> TRM: 0 0 0 0 Thermal event interrupts
> THR: 0 0 0 0 Threshold APIC
> interrupts
> SPU: 0 0 0 0 Spurious interrupts
> ERR: 0
> MIS: 0
>
> I was curious if this change had something to do with it?
>
> From:
> http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges?action=print
> i915: Add support for MSI and interrupt mitigation. (commit), disable
> MSI on GM965 (errata says it doesn't work) (commit)
>
> Are there any pros or cons having the device mapped to the PCI-MSI-edge vs.
> sitting on a regular IRQ? I am trying to understand the differences here,
> thanks!
It's better to have devices on MSI interrupts because the interrupt
source is always unambiguous (interrupts are never shared), among a few
other reasons..
prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-30 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-30 12:26 Different IRQ mapping from 2.6.27->2.6.28? Justin Piszcz
2008-12-30 17:27 ` Robert Hancock [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=495A5A04.2070502@shaw.ca \
--to=hancockr@shaw.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.