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

[Brian Gerst]

Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> 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.

Doesn't the IDTR take a virtual address?  It has to or else the f00f bug 
fix wouldn't work.

--
				Brian Gerst
-
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/