From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Oren Twaig <oren@scalemp.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Shai Fultheim <shai@scalemp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] X86: Hook apic vector allocation domain only when interrupt routing are set to ignore
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 13:50:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140427115036.GA22116@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <535CA9F6.7010101@scalemp.com>
* Oren Twaig <oren@scalemp.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> On 04/26/2014 09:09 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I still don't see a clear explanation of what the _user_ saw and sees
> > before and after the change. What is the effect of the patch: correct
> > IRQ routing (i.e. before the change IRQs would end up on the wrong
> > CPU), lower overhead IRQ routing (i.e. before the change IRQ routing
> > overhead was more expensive), or something else?
> >
> > You don't spell this out clearly and it's a crucial piece of
> > information that comes before every other explanation.
> >
> I see.. I tried to explain the entire flow and that was confusing - I'll explain
> only the patch.
>
> As you stated, in general, the patch corrects IRQ routing in case a vSMP
> Foundation box is detected but the Interrupt Routing Comply (IRC) is set to
> "comply".
>
> Before the patch:
> When a vSMP Foundation box was detected and IRC was set to "comply", users (and
> kernel) couldn't effectively set the destination of the IRQs. This is because
> the hook inside vsmp_64.c always setup all CPUs as the IRQ destination using
> cpumask_setall() as the return value for IRQ allocation mask. Later, this
> "overrided" mask caused the kernel to set the IRQ destination to the lowest
> online CPU in the mask (CPU0 usually).
>
> After the patch:
> When the IRC is set to "comply", Users (and kernel) can control the destination
> of the IRQs as we will not be changing the default
> "apic->vector_allocation_domain".
Much better, thanks!
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-27 11:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-24 21:52 [PATCH v2] X86: Hook apic vector allocation domain only when interrupt routing are set to ignore Oren Twaig
2014-04-25 8:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-25 11:08 ` Oren Twaig
2014-04-26 6:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-27 6:55 ` Oren Twaig
2014-04-27 11:50 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2014-04-25 14:22 ` Andi Kleen
2014-04-27 6:57 ` Oren Twaig
2014-04-27 11:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-27 18:34 ` Andi Kleen
2014-04-28 7:06 ` Oren Twaig
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=20140427115036.GA22116@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oren@scalemp.com \
--cc=shai@scalemp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).