On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 03:06:33AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> writes:
> 
> > I'd like to thank Michael Ellerman for his feedback.  This is a much
> > better patchset than it used to be.
> 
> There is a reason we don't have an API to support this.  Linux can not
> reasonably support this, especially not on current X86.  The designers
> of the of the AHCI were idiots and should have used MSI-X.
> 
> Attempting to support multiple irqs in an MSI capability breaks
> every interesting use of an irq.
> 
> mask/unmask is will likely break because the mask bit is optional
> and when it is not present we disable the msi capability.
> 
> We can not set the affinity individually so we can not allow
> different queues to be processed on different cores.
> 
> So in general it seems something that we have to jump through a million
> hurdles and the result is someones twisted parody of a multiple working
> irqs, that even Intel's IOMMU can't cure.

With interrupt-remapping, we can program the individual interrupt
remapping table entries to point to different cpu's etc. All we have
to take care is, do the IRTE allocation in a consecutive block and
program the starting index to the MSI registers.

Just curious Eric, why do you think that won't work?

thanks,
suresh

quoted text
> So unless the performance of the AHCI is better by a huge amount I don't
> see the point, and even then I am extremely sceptical.
> 
> Eric
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/