* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If we change the current "timer" entry to be listed as
> > > "lapic-timer" and not "IO-APIC-edge" (or one of the other names)
> > > and replace it with the count from LOC
[...]
> > But, as per the previous mails, the new behavior is just fine,
> > because /proc/interrupts just reflects reality. And the way the
> > kernel utilizes the hardware has just changed - for the better.
> >
> > The same happens when say a network driver implements NAPI: the IRQ
> > count goes way, way down. Or if a driver starts supporing MSI - the
> > IRQ line even moves to another one. Do we try to fix those counts up
> > to match the 'previous behavior'? Of course not. What you are
> > suggesting makes no sense, is against current kernel practices - as
> > we pointed it out to you 7 mails ago.
>
> I'm not saying we should "fake" anything .. [...]
sorry but that's precisely what your suggestion above results in:
> > > If we change the current "timer" entry to be listed as
> > > "lapic-timer" and not "IO-APIC-edge" (or one of the other names)
> > > and replace it with the count from LOC
"replace the timer entry with lapic-timer and put the LOC count there"
is faking something that does not reflect reality. The 'timer' count is
for IRQ#0, not for the local apic timer.
> [...] I'm saying list what's really happening .. In a human readable
> way .
we list precisely what is happening: the number of IRQ#0 interrupts and
the number of local APIC timer interrupts. Precisely where their
traditional place is.
i think you might be confused by the generic name that says 'timer'. You
should notice the other bits that are there too:
CPU0 CPU1
0: 495 0 IO-APIC-edge timer
the '0' means IRQ#0. That makes it clear that this is the PIT timer.
Clearer now?
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
