Re: [RFC][PATCH] i386: Per node IDT

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Sun, 11 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:

> Why per node? Why not go the whole way and make it per CPU?
> 
> I would also not define it statically, but allocate it at boot time
> in node local memory.

I went per node so that it would be minimal/zero impact for the no-node 
case, it would also simplify hotplug cpu since once a cpu in a node goes 
down, we still have other participating processors capable of handling 
its devices without having to do too much migration work. I'll definitely 
incorporate the node local allocations however, for some i386 systems we 
might be forced to stick some additional IDTs on node 0 since the IDTR 
will only take 32bit addresses and we could end up with only highmem on 
some nodes.

Thanks for the feedback,
	Zwane
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/