Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Attached below is my patch from last time I was looking at this
>> problem, it doesn't quite apply but it is gives a good idea of where I
>> think we should go.
>
> merged it up to x86.git - see below.
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Attached below is my patch from last time I was looking at this
> > problem, it doesn't quite apply but it is gives a good idea of where I
> > think we should go.
>
> merged it up to x86.git -
* Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Attached below is my patch from last time I was looking at this
> problem, it doesn't quite apply but it is gives a good idea of where I
> think we should go.
merged it up to x86.git - see below. Alan, have no tried to build, let
alone boot
Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
>> > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > * Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> >
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached below is my patch from last time I was looking at this
problem, it doesn't quite apply but it is gives a good idea of where I
think we should go.
merged it up to x86.git - see below. Alas, have no
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached below is my patch from last time I was looking at this
problem, it doesn't quite apply but it is gives a good idea of where I
think we should go.
merged it up to x86.git - see below.
Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while the irq compression
* Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached below is my patch from last time I was looking at this
problem, it doesn't quite apply but it is gives a good idea of where I
think we should go.
merged it up to x86.git - see below. Alan, have no tried to build, let
alone boot it.
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > * Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So while the irq compression code on i386
On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
be
"Natalie Protasevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we counted them in the order of 1400 external IRQs (actual
> ioapics/slots plus possible on-card bridges), and yes numbers for used
> IRQs were close to 250. Actual customer configurations could've big
> bigger, I don't have such data.
>
On Dec 5, 2007 3:25 PM, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Natalie Protasevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 PM, Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
> >> (x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI
"Natalie Protasevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 PM, Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
>> (x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
>> created a concept of "IRQ compression" on i386
>> to conserve IRQ
On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 PM, Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
> (x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
> created a concept of "IRQ compression" on i386
> to conserve IRQ numbers on systems with many
> sparsely populated IO
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
> > > be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64
Natalie Protasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 PM, Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
(x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
created a concept of IRQ compression on i386
to conserve IRQ numbers on systems
On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 PM, Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
(x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
created a concept of IRQ compression on i386
to conserve IRQ numbers on systems with many
sparsely populated IO APICs.
* Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
On Dec 5, 2007 3:25 PM, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Natalie Protasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Nov 27, 2007 10:21 PM, Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
(x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
created a
Natalie Protasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we counted them in the order of 1400 external IRQs (actual
ioapics/slots plus possible on-card bridges), and yes numbers for used
IRQs were close to 250. Actual customer configurations could've big
bigger, I don't have such data.
In
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
> > be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
> > this patch simply disables it on all high
* Christian Kujau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> thanks for the patch and the extensive description. I've applied this to
>> x86.git. Do you agree that this has no urgency for v2.6.24 and is thus
>> v2.6.25 material?
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but: aren't we
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
thanks for the patch and the extensive description. I've applied this to
x86.git. Do you agree that this has no urgency for v2.6.24 and is thus
v2.6.25 material?
Pardon my ignorance, but: aren't we in -rc already? I was under the
assumption that during
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
>> be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
>> this patch simply disables it on all high volume systems
>> to avoid
* Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
> be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
> this patch simply disables it on all high volume systems
> to avoid problems #1 and #2 on most all i386 systems.
>
* Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
this patch simply disables it on all high volume systems
to avoid problems #1 and #2 on most all i386 systems.
A
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
this patch simply disables it on all high volume systems
to avoid problems #1 and #2
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
thanks for the patch and the extensive description. I've applied this to
x86.git. Do you agree that this has no urgency for v2.6.24 and is thus
v2.6.25 material?
Pardon my ignorance, but: aren't we in -rc already? I was under the
assumption that during
* Christian Kujau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
thanks for the patch and the extensive description. I've applied this to
x86.git. Do you agree that this has no urgency for v2.6.24 and is thus
v2.6.25 material?
Pardon my ignorance, but: aren't we in -rc
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
this patch simply disables it on all high volume
Len Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
> (x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
> created a concept of "IRQ compression" on i386
> to conserve IRQ numbers on systems with many
> sparsely populated IO APICs.
>
> The
commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
(x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
created a concept of "IRQ compression" on i386
to conserve IRQ numbers on systems with many
sparsely populated IO APICs.
The same scheme was also added to x86_64,
but later
commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
(x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
created a concept of IRQ compression on i386
to conserve IRQ numbers on systems with many
sparsely populated IO APICs.
The same scheme was also added to x86_64,
but later
Len Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
commit c434b7a6aedfe428ad17cd61b21b125a7b7a29ce
(x86: avoid wasting IRQs for PCI devices)
created a concept of IRQ compression on i386
to conserve IRQ numbers on systems with many
sparsely populated IO APICs.
The same scheme
34 matches
Mail list logo