| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs justbec
|
To: |
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs justbecause there's no local APIC |
|
From: |
ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) |
|
Date: |
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:16:29 -0700 |
|
Cc: |
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:17:42 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<4A3B5FCD0200007800006AC0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Jan Beulich's message of "Fri\, 19 Jun 2009 08\:52\:13 +0100") |
|
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
|
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
|
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
|
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
|
References: |
<4A329CF8.4050502@xxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906181206190.4213@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3A9220.4070807@xxxxxxxx> <m1zlc5jqac.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3A99FB.7070807@xxxxxxxx> <m1vdmtgtt2.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3AC0C4.6060508@xxxxxxxx> <86802c440906182232r31088e4fh3613a8da6f8903f7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A3B5FCD0200007800006AC0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) |
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> 19.06.09 07:32 >>>
>>doesn't XEN support per cpu irq vector?
>
> No.
>
>>got sth from XEN 3.3 / SLES 11
>>
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 95 (level, low) -> IRQ 95
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: setting latency timer to 64
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: Intel(R) Gigabit Ethernet Network Connection
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: eth9: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) 00:21:28:3a:d8:0e
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: eth9: PBA No: ffffff-0ff
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: Using MSI-X interrupts. 4 rx queue(s), 4 tx queue(s)
>>vendor=8086 device=3420
>>(XEN) irq.c:847: dom0: invalid pirq 94 or vector -28
>>igb 0000:81:00.1: PCI INT B -> GSI 94 (level, low) -> IRQ 94
>>igb 0000:81:00.1: setting latency timer to 64
>>(XEN) physdev.c:87: dom0: map irq with wrong vector -28
>>map irq failed
>>(XEN) physdev.c:87: dom0: map irq with wrong vector -28
>>map irq failed
>>
>>the system need a lot of MSI-X normally.. with current mainline tree
>>kernel, it will need about 360 irq...
>
> Do you mean 360 connected devices, or just 360 IO-APIC pins (most of
> which are usually unused)? In the latter case, devices using MSI (i.e. not
> using high numbered IO-APIC pins) should work, while devices connected
> to IO-APIC pins numbered 256 and higher won't work in SLE11 as-is.
> This limitation got fixed recently in the 3.5-unstable tree, though. The
> 256 active vectors limit, however, continues to exist, so the former case
> would still not be supported by Xen.
Good question. I know YH had a system a few years ago that exceeded 256
vectors.
But in this case it really could be either.
Eric
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home