On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 11:07:58PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2017, Daniel Drake wrote: > > > > 2) The affinity setting of straight MSI interrupts (w/o remapping) on x86 > > > > requires to make the affinity change from the interrupt context of the > > > > current active vector in order not to lose interrupts or worst case > > > > getting into a stale state. > > > > > > > > That works for single vectors, but trying to move all vectors in one > > > > go is more or less impossible, as there is no reliable way to > > > > determine that none of the other vectors is on flight. > > > > > > > > There might be some 'workarounds' for that, but I rather avoid that > > > > unless we get an official documented one from Intel/AMD. > > > > > > Thinking more about it. That might be actually a non issue for MSI, but we > > > have that modus operandi in the current code and we need to address that > > > first before even thinking about multi MSI support. > > > > But even if its possible, it's very debatable whether it's worth the effort > > when this driver just can use the legacy INTx.and be done with it. > > Daniel said "Legacy interrupts do not work on that module, so MSI > support is required," so I assume he means INTx doesn't work. Maybe Hmm, I missed that detail obviously. > the driver could poll? I don't know how much slower that would be, > but at least it would penalize the broken device, not everybody. That would definitely be prefered. Thanks, tglx
