Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Nov 1999 10:07:52 -0600 | From | Matthew Vanecek <> | Subject | [OT] Re: IRQ Layout. |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > The Linux IOAPIC code just uses the IRQ layout that is present in the > > > system, we have no influence on this. > > > > One day, we may want to change this. For one, on a SMP system with 2 > > NICs, one might want each of the NICs delever their interrupt to a > > separate (but for each NIC always the same) CPU. [...] > > the point is that we _cannot_ change this. The IOAPIC pins are often > directly connected to respective PCI-bus interrupt pins. If the card sends > an INT#D then there is no way we can ever change this. This is a physical > property. Unless every Linux distribution includes a tiny remote > controllable robot equipped with a screwdriver and a soldering iron, i > doubt the kernel could ever get around this.
What about all that work that's being done on so-called nano-bots? ;)
Seriously, for Intel-based systems, it would be really nice to be able to up the number of IRQs available (in all systems), and to bind <whatever> on IRQ <whatever> to a specific processor (in SMP systems). -- Matthew Vanecek Course of Study: http://www.unt.edu/bcis Visit my Website at http://people.unt.edu/~mev0003 For answers type: perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);' ***************************************************************** For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting in the way of something...
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |