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=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 2A138C43462 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:21:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0845F61057 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 18:21:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231438AbhD3SW1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:22:27 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42372 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229750AbhD3SWZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 14:22:25 -0400 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FC67C06174A; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 11:21:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1619806893; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=As7DtcWhMuF7h0TJSZIn85h3WNKtXg9d7v6tEvOH+qs=; b=Hf0zeuoMznsXlwihwhVMhTEAKd/4k0Ku0M8qkgHH8iMN7iFVDrrBrlgDLNn/uPoy1iKACk iV7CRZB9Ietru5dVJrPzai9l+ANGERnoM8JgXjnkJPawpmserZobzznAl4wU8HbP20NjTi gRqE9n6dM5ioAwOCZzVGZkF7OsPPc/k3SqU4YMn9gzpCgcbhffPUGSRy5PXGDSRcu5/oUG wMHNT2SxUnZSEpx3ujEh29oxbC6yg30BKCWoswhigidBvafirSYlgeZ/dMOPKhz0vEmMTg dznmUDpTXBgikHUhP3rSy7pyiXwMs922CziEhTbkikOCwWL8a0FjSqJ788N/7g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1619806893; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=As7DtcWhMuF7h0TJSZIn85h3WNKtXg9d7v6tEvOH+qs=; b=FfdE0kUFkRqEf4ebx700jPou/iScTJY9te1G3qeOnRcZC57twD9Fxky/GZRsh+TKE1KvJx INh75Tmvp3C5AmBA== To: Nitesh Lal Cc: Jesse Brandeburg , "frederic\@kernel.org" , "juri.lelli\@redhat.com" , Marcelo Tosatti , abelits@marvell.com, Robin Murphy , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-api\@vger.kernel.org" , "bhelgaas\@google.com" , "linux-pci\@vger.kernel.org" , "rostedt\@goodmis.org" , "mingo\@kernel.org" , "peterz\@infradead.org" , "davem\@davemloft.net" , "akpm\@linux-foundation.org" , "sfr\@canb.auug.org.au" , "stephen\@networkplumber.org" , "rppt\@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "jinyuqi\@huawei.com" , "zhangshaokun\@hisilicon.com" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, chris.friesen@windriver.com Subject: Re: [Patch v4 1/3] lib: Restrict cpumask_local_spread to houskeeping CPUs In-Reply-To: References: <20200625223443.2684-1-nitesh@redhat.com> <3e9ce666-c9cd-391b-52b6-3471fe2be2e6@arm.com> <20210127121939.GA54725@fuller.cnet> <87r1m5can2.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20210128165903.GB38339@fuller.cnet> <87h7n0de5a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <20210204181546.GA30113@fuller.cnet> <20210204190647.GA32868@fuller.cnet> <87y2g26tnt.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <7780ae60-efbd-2902-caaa-0249a1f277d9@redhat.com> <07c04bc7-27f0-9c07-9f9e-2d1a450714ef@redhat.com> <20210406102207.0000485c@intel.com> <1a044a14-0884-eedb-5d30-28b4bec24b23@redhat.com> <20210414091100.000033cf@intel.com> <54ecc470-b205-ea86-1fc3-849c5b144b3b@redhat.com> <87czucfdtf.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:21:33 +0200 Message-ID: <87sg37eiqa.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nitesh, On Fri, Apr 30 2021 at 12:14, Nitesh Lal wrote: > Based on this analysis and the fact that with your re-work the interrupts > seems to be naturally spread across the CPUs, will it be safe to revert > Jesse's patch > > e2e64a932 genirq: Set initial affinity in irq_set_affinity_hint() > > as it overwrites the previously set IRQ affinity mask for some of the > devices? That's a good question. My gut feeling says yes. > IMHO if we think that this patch is still solving some issue other than > what Jesse has mentioned then perhaps we should reproduce that and fix it > directly from the request_irq code path. Makes sense. Thanks, tglx