On Fri, 2014-09-19 at 15:16 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 18:26 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > > From: Ian Munsie <imun...@au1.ibm.com> > > > > Currently msi_bitmap_alloc_hwirqs() will round up any IRQ allocation > > requests > > to the nearest power of 2. eg. ask for 5 IRQs and you'll get 8. This > > wastes a > > lot of IRQs which can be a scarce resource. > > > > For cxl we can require multiple IRQs for every contexts that is attached to > > the > > accelerator. For AFU directed accelerators, there may be 1000s of contexts > > attached, hence we can easily run out of IRQs, especially if we are > > needlessly > > wasting them. > > > > This changes the msi_bitmap_alloc_hwirqs() to allocate only the required > > number > > of IRQs, hence avoiding this wastage. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Munsie <imun...@au1.ibm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mi...@neuling.org> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/msi_bitmap.c | 18 +++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > This conflicts with (and partially duplicates) > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/381892/ > which I have in my tree. How should we handle it? > > Laurentiu, from looking at the overlap between patches I see a problem > with your existing patch, regarding the out-of-irqs path and > msi_bitmap_free_hwirqs(), so one way or another that needs to get fixed > soon.
Given the problems with Laurentiu's patch, perhaps it'd be best for me to just revert that patch in my tree, and respin it after this patchset has been merged. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
