Re: IRQ affinity vs. MTRRs, was Re: 36 bit MTRRs, Re: test10-pre1 problems on 4-way SuperServer8050

2000-10-12 Thread David Wragg
Boszormenyi Zoltan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The idea is that when it is sure that _only one_ (or some) CPU will access > a PCI card's mmio area then only that CPU's (those CPUs') MTRRs needs to > contain an entry for that area. > > Although there are (must be) common MTRR entries for the main

Re: IRQ affinity vs. MTRRs, was Re: 36 bit MTRRs, Re: test10-pre1 problems on 4-way SuperServer8050

2000-10-12 Thread David Wragg
Boszormenyi Zoltan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I came up with an idea. The MTRRs are per-cpu things. > Ingo Molnar's IRQ affinity code helps binding certain > IRQ sources to certain CPUs. They are implemented as per-cpu things but the Intel manuals say that all cpus should have the same MTRR se

Re: IRQ affinity vs. MTRRs, was Re: 36 bit MTRRs, Re: test10-pre1 problems on 4-way SuperServer8050

2000-10-12 Thread Gábor Lénárt
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:12:19PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > I came up with an idea. The MTRRs are per-cpu things. > Ingo Molnar's IRQ affinity code helps binding certain > IRQ sources to certain CPUs. > > What if the MTRR driver allows per-CPU settings, maybe only on > uncached areas? O