public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>,
	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>, Alan Mayer <ajm@sgi.com>,
	Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at arch/x86/kernel/io_apic_64.c:357!
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:42:17 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <488FAAD9.4090907@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1bq0g8euy.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> writes:
>
>   
>> I didn't follow this from the start but one reason why NR_IRQS based on
>> NR_CPUS is a bad idea, is the huge (nearly 300Mb) increase in memory usage
>> (that's mostly wasted.)  I believe there's another patch coming real soon
>> now to make irq allocations dynamic.  (I had also hoped to look closer at
>> your irq abstraction patch you sent a while back.  Does that also address
>> this issue?)
>>     
>
> The patch I sent out earlier is one of the key patches needed for killing
> NR_IRQS usage in generic code.  Which is part of what we need to make this
> dynamic.
>
> In systems where the I/O is well balanced with the compute the typical
> usage is usually within 16 irqs per core, and at worst 32.  That is an old
> rule of thumb observation and that makes for reasonable allocations.
>
> I don't have a problem at all with your code that updated the heuristic to
> be based on the NR_IOAPICS.
>
> My problem is with Thomas's patch that totally threw out all of our tuned
> heuristics and made NR_IRQS=256.  Which is ludicrous.  Even on 32bit systems
> there are cases where 1024 irq sources needed to be supported.
>
> Which is what NR_IRQ_VECTORS is.  I goofed slightly in my comments.
> irq_vector only needs to be NR_IRQS in size.  I think ACPI still needs
> NR_IRQ_VECTORS to know how many GSI the kernel can support.  The fact they
> are not mapped 1-1 right now in the 32bit kernel is unfortunate.
>   

I'm still interested in making Xen's event channel-based interrupts fit 
better into the rest of the interrupt handling scheme.  In particular, 
event channels map very closely to the x86-64 notion of a vector.  
There's 1024 of them per domain, and each is bound to a cpu.  At the 
moment, I map them to irqs, which means that I need to allocate around 
5-6 irqs per cpu, which makes everything very cluttered.  I'd like to 
map event channels to vectors, and then map vectors to (irq,cpu) tuples.

 From what I've seen this is exactly how x86-64 currently has things set 
up, and I'm interested in making sure that 32-bit does the same thing. 

I'm also interested in having vectors being sourced from multiple 
interrupt controllers.  So, some vectors would be sourced from APICs, 
and other are sourced from event channels.  This would be useful for Xen 
domains which have direct access to hardware (ie, the dom0 control 
domain in the short term, and disaggregated driver domains later on), 
and fully emulated domains which have paravirtual drivers.

I haven't studied the current code to see if this notion already exists 
or not.

While the APIC interrupt model is the most architecturally important for 
the x86 platform, I'd like to make sure we don't build in the assumption 
that it's the *only* interrupt model.

    J

  reply	other threads:[~2008-07-29 23:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-07-29 16:09 kernel BUG at arch/x86/kernel/io_apic_64.c:357! Dhaval Giani
2008-07-29 18:35 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-07-29 19:20   ` Yinghai Lu
2008-07-29 20:14     ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-29 20:37       ` Yinghai Lu
2008-07-29 22:17       ` Mike Travis
2008-07-29 22:21         ` Yinghai Lu
2008-07-29 23:12           ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-30  0:00             ` Alan Cox
2008-07-30  1:29               ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-29 23:12         ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-29 23:42           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-07-30  0:01             ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-07-30  0:50               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-30  1:36                 ` Eric W. Biederman
2008-08-01 17:48                   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-07-29 20:21     ` Dhaval Giani

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=488FAAD9.4090907@goop.org \
    --to=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=ajm@sgi.com \
    --cc=cpw@sgi.com \
    --cc=dhaval@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=steiner@sgi.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=travis@sgi.com \
    --cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.com \
    /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