From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:59174 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726467AbeIEPIR (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:08:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:38:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Kashyap Desai cc: Dou Liyang , Ming Lei , Sumit Saxena , Ming Lei , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shivasharan Srikanteshwara , linux-block , Dou Liyang Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20180829084618.GA24765@ming.t460p> <300d6fef733ca76ced581f8c6304bac6@mail.gmail.com> <615d78004495aebc53807156d04d988c@mail.gmail.com> <486f94a563d63c4779498fe8829a546c@mail.gmail.com> <602cee6381b9f435a938bbaf852d07f9@mail.gmail.com> <66256272c020be186becdd7a3f049302@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Kashyap Desai wrote: > > Shall we also spread the managed interrupts on allocation? > > I tried your proposed patch. Using patch, It is not assigning effective irq > to CPU = 0 , but it pick *one* cpu from 0-71 range. > Eventually, effective cpu is always *one* logical cpu. Behavior is > different, but impact is still same. Oh well. This was not intended to magically provide the solution you want to have. It merily changed the behaviour of the managed interrupt selection, which is a valid thing to do independent of the stuff you want to see. As I said that needs more thought and I really can't tell when I have a time slot to look at that. Thanks, tglx From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75BEC433F5 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 10:38:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E53920857 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 10:38:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7E53920857 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727748AbeIEPIS (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:08:18 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:59174 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726467AbeIEPIR (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:08:17 -0400 Received: from p4fea45ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([79.234.69.172] helo=nanos) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fxVCg-0000ll-JM; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 12:38:30 +0200 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:38:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Kashyap Desai cc: Dou Liyang , Ming Lei , Sumit Saxena , Ming Lei , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shivasharan Srikanteshwara , linux-block , Dou Liyang Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20180829084618.GA24765@ming.t460p> <300d6fef733ca76ced581f8c6304bac6@mail.gmail.com> <615d78004495aebc53807156d04d988c@mail.gmail.com> <486f94a563d63c4779498fe8829a546c@mail.gmail.com> <602cee6381b9f435a938bbaf852d07f9@mail.gmail.com> <66256272c020be186becdd7a3f049302@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Kashyap Desai wrote: > > Shall we also spread the managed interrupts on allocation? > > I tried your proposed patch. Using patch, It is not assigning effective irq > to CPU = 0 , but it pick *one* cpu from 0-71 range. > Eventually, effective cpu is always *one* logical cpu. Behavior is > different, but impact is still same. Oh well. This was not intended to magically provide the solution you want to have. It merily changed the behaviour of the managed interrupt selection, which is a valid thing to do independent of the stuff you want to see. As I said that needs more thought and I really can't tell when I have a time slot to look at that. Thanks, tglx