From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932777AbcGDJaX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 05:30:23 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42500 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753058AbcGDJaV (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 05:30:21 -0400
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 11:35:28 +0200
From: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, axboe@fb.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] blk-mq: allow the driver to pass in an affinity
 mask
Message-ID: <20160704093527.GB2783@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
References: <1465934346-20648-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
 <1465934346-20648-12-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
 <20160704081540.GA2783@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
 <20160704083849.GA3585@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160704083849.GA3585@lst.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Mon, 04 Jul 2016 09:30:20 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:38:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > +static int blk_mq_create_mq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> > > +		const struct cpumask *affinity_mask)
> > > +{
> > > +	int queue = -1, cpu = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	set->mq_map = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*set->mq_map) * nr_cpu_ids,
> > > +			GFP_KERNEL, set->numa_node);
> > > +	if (!set->mq_map)
> > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!affinity_mask)
> > > +		return 0;	/* map all cpus to queue 0 */
> > > +
> > > +	/* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
> > > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > +		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
> > > +			queue++;
> > 
> > CPUs missing in an affinity mask are mapped to hctxs. Is that intended?
> 
> Yes - each CPU needs to be mapped to some hctx, otherwise we can't
> submit I/O from that CPU.
> 
> > > +		if (queue > 0)
> > 
> > Why this check?
> > 
> > > +			set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
> 
> mq_map is initialized to zero already, so we don't really need the
> assignment for queue 0.  The reason why this check exists is because
> we start with queue = -1 and we never want to assignment -1 to mq_map.

Would this read better then?

	int queue = 0;

	...

	/* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
		set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
			queue++;
	}