Re: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision

[Andi Kleen]

On Thursday 27 April 2006 21:10, Protasevich, Natalie wrote:
> > 
> > >There are probably better ways to control 224 possible IRQs by their 
> > >total number instead of their range, and per-cpu IDTs are the better 
> > >answer to the IRQ shortage altogether. But just going back 
> > to the way 
> > >it was wouldn't be right I think.
> > >We were able to run 2 generations of
> > >systems only because we had this compression, other big systems 
> > >benefited from it as well.
> > 
> > I don't propose reverting the IRQ re-name patch and breaking 
> > the big iron without replacing it with something else that works.
> 
> Len, maybe it sounds dramatic and/or extreme, but how about getting rid
> of IRQs and just having GSI-vector pair.
> I intuitively think that would be possible (not that I have all the
> details lined up :)
> And this would probably take away confusing IRQ abstraction out once and
> for all? I think something like that is done in ia64.

x86 users are attached to their interrupt numbers I think back from the bad old
days with only 16 interrupts and interrupt sharing didn't work. We might have a revolt
in the user base if /proc/interrupts didn't display them anymore @)

But I guess using GSI/vector internally only would be fine.

-Andi

-
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/