RE: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-07-10 Thread Luck, Tony
> This seems to be an intermittent problem. One more note on that ... my test system often kicks out some "Unexpected irq vector 0x13 on CPU xx!" messages as it boots. Looking at the logs of previous boots, I see between zero and two such messages in the last few dozen boots, When the kernel w

RE: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-07-10 Thread Luck, Tony
> I have never seen these messages. I will check them. This seems to be an intermittent problem. I just got my serial console working again to get you a full stack trace, and the first time I booted the kernel with your vector domain patch it didn't crash. Second boot did crash. Here's the stac

Re: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-07-05 Thread Yasuaki Ishimatsu
Hi Tony, Luck, Tony wrote: >> Here is a series of patches for ia64 vector domain. By these patches, we can >> use more than 256 irqs. The patchset is based on existing x86-64 vector >> domain >> code. This is for 2.6.22-rc5 and I tested them on my ia64 box. > > There are a few whitespace issues

Re: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-07-03 Thread Yasuaki Ishimatsu
Luck, Tony wrote: >> include/asm/hardirq.h:30:3: #error HARDIRQ_BITS is too low! > > This one is a direct consequence of the new definition of NR_IRQS: > > #define NR_IRQS (NR_VECTORS + 32 * NR_CPUS)) > > With a large NR_CPUS value, this gets too big. Do we really need to scale > it with the nu

Re: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-07-02 Thread Yasuaki Ishimatsu
Luck, Tony wrote: >> Here is a series of patches for ia64 vector domain. By these patches, we can >> use more than 256 irqs. The patchset is based on existing x86-64 vector >> domain >> code. This is for 2.6.22-rc5 and I tested them on my ia64 box. > > There are a few whitespace issues () amongst

RE: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-06-29 Thread Luck, Tony
> include/asm/hardirq.h:30:3: #error HARDIRQ_BITS is too low! This one is a direct consequence of the new definition of NR_IRQS: #define NR_IRQS (NR_VECTORS + 32 * NR_CPUS)) With a large NR_CPUS value, this gets too big. Do we really need to scale it with the number of cpus? I don't think this

RE: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-06-29 Thread Luck, Tony
> arch/ia64/kernel/irq_ia64.c: In function `parse_vector_domain': > arch/ia64/kernel/irq_ia64.c:270: error: `no_int_routing' undeclared (first > use in this function) Fix for this is just: diff --git a/arch/ia64/kernel/irq_ia64.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/irq_ia64.c index 8efb6e1..91abd1b 100644 --- a/

RE: [RFC][PATCH take2 0/13] Support vector domain on ia64

2007-06-29 Thread Luck, Tony
> Here is a series of patches for ia64 vector domain. By these patches, we can > use more than 256 irqs. The patchset is based on existing x86-64 vector domain > code. This is for 2.6.22-rc5 and I tested them on my ia64 box. There are a few whitespace issues () amongst these patches (I think in pa