Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753177AbbKIKML (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 05:12:11 -0500 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:33687 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752736AbbKIKHT (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 05:07:19 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] genirq: Add a new generic IPI reservation code to irq core To: Thomas Gleixner References: <1446549181-31788-1-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <1446549181-31788-8-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> CC: , , , , , From: Qais Yousef Message-ID: <56407055.6080602@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 10:07:17 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.94] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 857 Lines: 21 On 11/07/2015 01:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote: >> + >> + /* always allocate a virq per cpu */ >> + nr_irqs = ipi_mask_weight(dest); > That's not really a good assumption. Not all architectures need > seperate interrupt numbers / descriptors because they can allocate > from a per cpu interrupt space. We really want to handle that here as > well. So we need a flag in the IPI domain which tells us whether that > allocation needs to be weight(desc) or 1. OK. But is it bad to always allocate the weight? I thought allocating virqs is cheap, or maybe not? Thanks, Qais -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/