Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161350AbWJ3SuR (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:50:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161351AbWJ3SuR (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:50:17 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.186]:52703 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161350AbWJ3SuP (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:50:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20061030144259.GD10235@parisc-linux.org> References: <200610282350.k9SNoljL020236@freya.yggdrasil.com> <20061030144259.GD10235@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <87F87E8E-9434-4844-AA3F-ED850BEFAD29@mac.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Adam J. Richter" , akpm@osdl.org, bunk@stusta.de, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, pavel@ucw.cz, shemminger@osdl.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: [patch] drivers: wait for threaded probes between initcall levels Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:47:53 -0500 To: Matthew Wilcox X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-scanned: yes Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1668 Lines: 35 On Oct 30, 2006, at 09:42:59, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 09:23:10AM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> recursive make invocations and nested directories). Likewise in >> the context of recursively nested busses and devices; multiple PCI >> domains, USB, Firewire, etc. > > I don't think you know what a PCI domain is ... Fair enough, I guess I don't, really... >> Well, perhaps it does. If I have (hypothetically) a 64-way system >> with several PCI domains, I should be able to not only start >> scanning each PCI domain individually, but once each domain has >> been scanned it should be able to launch multiple probing threads, >> one for each device on the PCI bus. That is, assuming that I have >> properly set up my udev to statically name devices. > > There's still one spinlock that protects *all* accesses to PCI > config space. Maybe we should make it one per PCI root bridge or > something, but even that wouldn't help some architectures. Well, yes, but it would help some architectures. It would seem rather stupid to build a hardware limitation into a 64+ cpu system such that it cannot initialize or reconfigure multiple pieces of hardware at once. It also would help for more "mundane" systems such as my "Quad" G5 desktop which takes an appreciable time to probe all the various PCI, USB, SATA, and Firewire devices in the system. Cheers, Kyle Moffett - 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/