Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Eric, > > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> - define NR_IRQS as follow: >>> >>> Vector domain can provide the number of irqs being proportional to the >>> number of CPUs theoretically. However, the relation between them is >>> actually not linear, especially in large system. To avoid the memory >>> consumption derived from too many irqs, I define NR_IRQS as follows: >>> >>> #if (NR_VECTORS + 32 * NR_CPUS) < 1024 >>> #define NR_IRQS (NR_VECTORS + 32 * NR_CPUS) >>> #else >>> #define NR_IRQS 1024 >>> #endif >> >> >> Below is my old patch to address this in a different way. >> Basically this moves the per cpu counter of the number of >> times an irq has happened on an individual cpu out of the >> per cpu area. Honestly I think this might even have better >> cache performance. > > Sorry for my late reply. > > I overviewed your patch and the patch looks good to me. It can improve > not only ia64 vector domain but also x86_64 vector domain. I'll consider > testing the patch after rebasing it, and if it'll be OK, including your > idea (or similar one) into my patchset. > > BTW, I googled to find the discussion related to your patch, but can't find > it at all. Where did you submit it to? I just started the discussion. :) Basically I have a tree where I am working on removing all arrays of size NR_IRQS. Which makes it then possible to assign irq numbers with a stable scheme even when we have a bunch of them. You might find a little bit about that on linux-arch. I haven't had time to finish my internal tree merge it anywhere. So the half complete pieces are just sitting on my hard drive. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|