From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kenji Kaneshige Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 01:41:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 2/10] Multiple vector domain support - cpu and domain Message-Id: <42D865D5.5090305@jp.fujitsu.com> List-Id: References: <42D62E73.1050108@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <42D62E73.1050108@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Ashok Raj wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 06:20:51PM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > >>This patch add the code to handle the relationship between cpu and >>domains. We need more consideration about how to separate vector >>domains. >> >>Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige >> >>--- >> > > > Should we consider this based on some mach-* like schemes, so for e.g in > NUMA case we could use node as a VECTOR_DOMAIN? ... or maybe we could > somehow tie this into CPUSETS?.. > > I think some hardware implements hardware interrupt redirection on each node. For such system, I think it is good idea to use NUMA node as a VECTOR_DOMAIN to make it possible to use hardware interrupt redirection. Currently I don't have other reasons to use the set of processors as a vector domain instead of per-CPU approach. Does anyone have other reasons to use other approach than per-CPU approach? Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige