Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In addition the cases I can think of allowed_affinity is the wrong >> name. suggested_affinity sounds like what you are trying to implement >> and when it is merely a suggestion and not a hard limit it doesn't >> make sense to export like this. > > well, there are interrupts that must be tied to a single CPU and must > never be moved away. For example per-CPU clock-events-source interrupts > are such. So allowed_affinity very much exists.
Although in that case since it is a single cpu there is a much more elegant implementation. We don't need a full cpumask_t to describe it. > also there might be hardware that can only route a given IRQ to a subset > of CPUs. While setting set_affinity allows the irqbalance-daemon to > 'probe' this mask, it's a far from optimal API. I agree, I am just arguing that adding another awkward interface to the current situation does not really make the situation better, and it increases our support burden. For a bunch of this it is arguable that the way to go is simply to parse the irq type in /proc/interrupts. All of the really weird cases will have a distinct type there. This certainly captures the MSI-X case. There is still a question of how to handle the NUMA case but... Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
