From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@gmail.com>
Cc: "Len Brown" <lenb@kernel.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>,
       "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@redhat.com>,
       "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 IOAPIC: de-fang IRQ compression
References: <200711280121.18376.lenb@kernel.org>
	<32209efe0712050525j486922a9s471f3871e69aedff@mail.gmail.com>
	<m1mysovi5k.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
	<32209efe0712051548n72f60b0eofa130f28701ca77@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:20:52 -0700
In-Reply-To: <32209efe0712051548n72f60b0eofa130f28701ca77@mail.gmail.com>
	(Natalie Protasevich's message of "Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:48:28 -0800")
Message-ID: <m1eje0va0r.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1037
Lines: 24

"Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@gmail.com> writes:

> I think we counted them in the order of 1400 external IRQs (actual
> ioapics/slots plus possible on-card bridges), and yes numbers for used
> IRQs were close to 250. Actual customer configurations could've big
> bigger, I don't have such data.
>
>> In particular is a large NR_IRQS plus dynamic vector allocation
>> sufficient for all cases you know about?
>
> Yes, since x86_64 boxes never had a problem once dynamic vectors were
> incorporated.

I was wondering if we could avoid making the vectors per cpu and still be
in good shape on x86_32.  From your description it looks like we can't
quite support everything on x86_32 if we don't do the per cpu vector
thing.  However we will likely have everything interesting supported.

Eric
--
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/