From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qy0-f187.google.com (mail-qy0-f187.google.com [209.85.221.187]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27909B7D0F for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:46:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by qyk17 with SMTP id 17so3156897qyk.9 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:46:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: pku.leo@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <1271645181.14835.46.camel@concordia> References: <1271403278-30091-1-git-send-email-leoli@freescale.com> <1271403278-30091-2-git-send-email-leoli@freescale.com> <1271645181.14835.46.camel@concordia> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:46:42 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fsl_msi: enable msi allocation in all banks From: Li Yang To: michael@ellerman.id.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Zhao Chenhui List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:34 +0800, Li Yang wrote: >> From: Zhao Chenhui >> >> Put all fsl_msi banks in a linked list. The list of banks then can be >> traversed when allocating new msi interrupts. > > So there are multiple banks, and you just use the first one that has an > empty slot in it's bitmap? Yes, currently we are. What allocation algorithm do you think is better? I don't think spreading the allocation evenly should have any performance benefit. The point of multiple banks should be better insulation through multiple OS's, IMHO. - Leo