From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: david mosberger Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:09:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 2/10] Multiple vector domain support - cpu and domain management Message-Id: 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 I didn't have time to look at these patches yet, but what I was wondering: SGI Altix already does per-CPU interrupts. Do we really need another abstraction or could you use the same approach as SGI? --david On 7/14/05, 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?.. > > > + > > +#ifdef CONFIG_VECTOR_DOMAIN > > +int ia64_cpu_domain_map[NR_CPUS]; > > +cpumask_t ia64_domain_cpumask[NR_VECTOR_DOMAINS]; > > + > > +void __devinit > > +ia64_attach_cpu_to_domain (int cpu) > > +{ > > + static int domain = -1; > > + > > + /* Simple Round Robin for now */ > > + if (++domain >= NR_VECTOR_DOMAINS) > > + domain = 0; > > + ia64_cpu_domain_map[cpu] = domain; > > + cpu_set(cpu, ia64_domain_cpumask[domain]); > > +} > > +#endif /* CONFIG_VECTOR_DOMAIN */ > > -- > Cheers, > Ashok Raj > - Open Source Technology Center > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >