On 10/20/20 3:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:00:05AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> So I think it is important to figure out what that driver really wants
>>> in the nohz_full case. If it wants to retain N interrupts per CPU, and
>>> only reduce the number of CPUs, the proposed interface is wrong.
>> It wants N interrupts per non-isolated (AKA housekeeping) CPU.
> Then the patch is wrong and the interface needs changing from @min_vecs,
> @max_vecs to something that expresses the N*nr_cpus relation.

Reading Marcelo's comment again I think what is really expected is 1
interrupt per non-isolated (housekeeping) CPU (not N interrupts).

My bad that I missed it initially.

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh