* Oren Twaig <o...@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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
