On 09/19/2014 11:19 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > 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.
Let me know if you want me to rebase my stuff on top of Michael's patch. --- Best Regards, Laurentiu _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
