From: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@broadcom.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Shivasharan Srikanteshwara
<shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com>
Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:24:22 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0b542db5145d878ef1b839387445987d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180911092126.GA10330@lst.de>
>
> The point I don't get here is why you need separate reply queues for
> the interrupt coalesce setting. Shouldn't this just be a flag at
> submission time that indicates the amount of coalescing that should
> happen?
>
> What is the benefit of having different completion queues?
Having different set of queues (it will is something like N:16 where N
queues are without interrupt coalescing and 16 dedicated queues for
interrupt coalescing) we want to avoid penalty introduced by interrupt
coalescing especially for lower QD profiles.
Kashyap
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-11 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <eccc46e12890a1d033d9003837012502@mail.gmail.com>
2018-08-29 8:46 ` Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts Ming Lei
2018-08-29 10:46 ` Sumit Saxena
2018-08-30 17:15 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-31 6:54 ` Ming Lei
2018-08-31 7:50 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-31 20:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-08-31 21:49 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-31 22:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-08-31 23:37 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-02 12:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-03 5:34 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-03 16:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-04 10:29 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-05 5:46 ` Dou Liyang
2018-09-05 9:45 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-05 10:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-06 10:14 ` Dou Liyang
2018-09-06 11:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-11 9:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-09-11 9:38 ` Dou Liyang
2018-09-11 9:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-09-03 2:13 ` Ming Lei
2018-09-03 6:10 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-03 9:21 ` Ming Lei
2018-09-03 9:50 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-11 9:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-09-11 9:54 ` Kashyap Desai [this message]
2018-08-28 6:47 Sumit Saxena
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0b542db5145d878ef1b839387445987d@mail.gmail.com \
--to=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com \
--cc=sumit.saxena@broadcom.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).