Re: [RFC][patch 2/10] Multiple vector domain support - cpu and domain management

From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji_at_jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: 2005-07-16 11:41:41
Ashok Raj wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 06:20:51PM +0900, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:
> 
>>This patch add the code to handle the relationship between cpu and
>>domains. We need more consideration about how to separate vector
>>domains.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
>>
>>---
>>
> 
> 
> Should we consider this based on some mach-* like schemes, so for e.g in
> NUMA case we could use node as a VECTOR_DOMAIN? ... or maybe we could
> somehow tie this into CPUSETS?..
>  
> 

I think some hardware implements hardware interrupt
redirection on each node. For such system, I think it
is good idea to use NUMA node as a VECTOR_DOMAIN to
make it possible to use hardware interrupt redirection.
Currently I don't have other reasons to use the set of
processors as a vector domain instead of per-CPU approach.

Does anyone have other reasons to use other approach than
per-CPU approach?

Thanks,
Kenji Kaneshige
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Jul 15 21:43:58 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:40 EST