From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/25] Decouple IRQ issues (MSI, i386, x86_64, ia64) Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:24:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20060621102407.GA18447@elte.hu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:16529 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751481AbWFUKaA (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:30:00 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, discuss@x86-64.org, Thomas Gleixner , Andi Kleen , Natalie Protasevich , Len Brown , Kimball Murray , Brice Goglin , Greg Lindahl , Dave Olson , Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , Grant Grundler , "bibo,mao" , Rajesh Shah , Mark Maule , Jesper Juhl , Shaohua Li , Matthew Wilcox , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Ashok Raj , Randy Dunlap , Roland Dreier * Eric W. Biederman wrote: > The following patchset is against 2.6.17-rc6-mm2. It was the only easy > place I could get everyones work who has been touching relevant code. > > The primary aim of this patch is to remove maintenances problems > caused by the irq infrastructure. The two big issues I address are an > artificially small cap on the number of irqs, and that MSI assumes > vector == irq. My primary focus is on x86_64 but I have touched other > architectures where necessary to keep them from breaking. Very nice! Your queue addresses all of the remaining grievances i had about the x86_64/i386 IRQ code (MSI/balancing) and does this ontop of genirq, which is very good. This is much more than i hoped for when you told us about your project! :) The only open bigger issue i guess (besides all the smaller code details that i'm sure we'll sort out) is timing. Your queue, as tempting as it is, is probably not 2.6.18 material. _I_ would certainly dare this for 2.6.18, but Andrew/Linus would kill me i guess. So the question is - are we brave/confident enough to try to stabilize this in the next couple of days and drop it into 2.6.18 together with the other bits of genirq? I strongly suspect that the bugs this patchset will introduce is roughly equal to the bugs we already have due to the existing MSI and irq-balancing unrobustnesses, so we might as well go for that, instead of prolonging the pain by doing a two-stage (or 3-stage) process. (which would be to introduce genirq stage #1 now, then introduce genirq stage #2 in 2.6.19) Delaying genirq to 2.6.19 altogether would be messy i think and would interfere with ben's (and others') platform plans. Hm? One big point of confidence would be if ia64 built and booted fine with these changes. Somehow ia64 seems to be the most sensitive to MSI (and genirq) changes. Ingo