Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:43:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs
Message-ID: <20061213194332.GA29185@elte.hu>
References: <1166018020.27217.805.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <m1lklbport.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m1lklbport.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 937
Lines: 22


* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:

> In addition the cases I can think of allowed_affinity is the wrong 
> name.  suggested_affinity sounds like what you are trying to implement 
> and when it is merely a suggestion and not a hard limit it doesn't 
> make sense to export like this.

well, there are interrupts that must be tied to a single CPU and must 
never be moved away. For example per-CPU clock-events-source interrupts 
are such. So allowed_affinity very much exists.

also there might be hardware that can only route a given IRQ to a subset 
of CPUs. While setting set_affinity allows the irqbalance-daemon to 
'probe' this mask, it's a far from optimal API.

	Ingo
-
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/