Have you seen any problems with interrupt binding on 2.6.0-drv45003 ?
I tried this command to bind interrupt, but it does not work:
============================
cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
ffffffff00000000
echo 01 > /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
ffffffff00000000
===========================
There is nothing changed after binding.
One thing I see is it shows 16 digits "ffffffff00000000" on 2.6.0 while
only 8 digits in 2.4 .
Do I need any special ways to bind interrupt ?
Thanks.,
Hi,
> Have you seen any problems with interrupt binding on 2.6.0-drv45003 ?
> I tried this command to bind interrupt, but it does not work:
> ============================
> cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> ffffffff00000000
> echo 01 > /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> ffffffff00000000
This is probably a ppc64 specific issue, we can continue this on
[email protected]
> There is nothing changed after binding.
> One thing I see is it shows 16 digits "ffffffff00000000" on 2.6.0 while
> only 8 digits in 2.4 .
Its part of the support for > 32way machines, but it looks like its
broken for some configurations (Im guessing you have CONFIG_NR_CPUS set
to 32).
Anton
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 14:33, Dong V Nguyen wrote:
> Have you seen any problems with interrupt binding on 2.6.0-drv45003 ?
> I tried this command to bind interrupt, but it does not work:
> ============================
> cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> ffffffff00000000
> echo 01 > /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> ffffffff00000000
> ===========================
> There is nothing changed after binding.
> One thing I see is it shows 16 digits "ffffffff00000000" on 2.6.0 while
> only 8 digits in 2.4 .
> Do I need any special ways to bind interrupt ?
Is your architecure broken?
Works fine on x86:
root@foo:/proc/irq# cat 17/smp_affinity
ffffffff
root@foo:/proc/irq# echo 1 > 17/smp_affinity
root@foo:/proc/irq# cat 17/smp_affinity
00010000
--
Dave Hansen
[email protected]
Anton,
You're right. By defaut, the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is set to 32.
I need to reset that and rebuild the kernel to try the interrupt binding
again.
Thanks,
Anton Blanchard <[email protected]> on 11/10/2003 04:48:22 PM
To: Dong V Nguyen/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 2.6.0 kernel: Bind interrupt question.
Hi,
> Have you seen any problems with interrupt binding on 2.6.0-drv45003 ?
> I tried this command to bind interrupt, but it does not work:
> ============================
> cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> ffffffff00000000
> echo 01 > /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> ffffffff00000000
This is probably a ppc64 specific issue, we can continue this on
[email protected]
> There is nothing changed after binding.
> One thing I see is it shows 16 digits "ffffffff00000000" on 2.6.0 while
> only 8 digits in 2.4 .
Its part of the support for > 32way machines, but it looks like its
broken for some configurations (Im guessing you have CONFIG_NR_CPUS set
to 32).
Anton
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > Have you seen any problems with interrupt binding on 2.6.0-drv45003 ?
> > I tried this command to bind interrupt, but it does not work:
> > ============================
> > cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> > ffffffff00000000
> > echo 01 > /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> > cat /proc/irq/165/smp_affinity
> > ffffffff00000000
>
> This is probably a ppc64 specific issue, we can continue this on
> [email protected]
>
> > There is nothing changed after binding.
> > One thing I see is it shows 16 digits "ffffffff00000000" on 2.6.0 while
> > only 8 digits in 2.4 .
>
> Its part of the support for > 32way machines, but it looks like its
> broken for some configurations (Im guessing you have CONFIG_NR_CPUS set
> to 32).
There was a fix which went in for something similar on i386 a while back.
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > Its part of the support for > 32way machines, but it looks like its
> > broken for some configurations (Im guessing you have CONFIG_NR_CPUS set
> > to 32).
>
> There was a fix which went in for something similar on i386 a while back.
And here is a link; PPC64 appears to have the older version
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=uoUN.V9.15%40gated-at.bofh.it&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dsmp_affinity%2Bi386%2BZwane%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3DuoUN.V9.15%2540gated-at.bofh.it%26rnum%3D1