Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tuesday, March 08, 2005 4:13 pm, Colin Ngam wrote: > > That's what I will find out before deciding to use it. It is not used for > > IPIs on our platform, probably for very good reasons. > > Yep, because IPIs generated from the local block to a distant processor won't > work otherwise (afaik). > > > If we can and the > > address is the same than it is a no brainer. > > > > > targetted there should also work. The problem for us is if a processor > > > tries to IPI a processor on a different node with the processor interrupt > > > block, which I don't think MSIs will try to do. > > > > Perhaps you can elaborate. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. > > The SHub manual is a little vague here, but my understanding is that in order > to send remote IPIs we need to use the SHub, whereas local IPIs (i.e. > processor to itself or to the other CPU on the same FSB) will work fine. > > An MSI should behave like a processor sending an IPI to itself since its > address can be targeted at the processor's interrupt block and set to > generate a local interrupt. Is that right, Tom & Grant? > > If this won't work for us, no biggie, we just have to abstract things a little > more. We could make the MSI into a platform specific cookie that we can > store a SHub/PIC/TIO address in and other platforms can use to target the > processor interrupt block. Hopefully we won't have to do that though, since > it would require a few more changes.
May be the way we go. Needs more perusal of the MSI code. Thanks. colin > > > Jesse > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
