From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>
Cc: Dou Liyang <dou_liyang@163.com>, Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@broadcom.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Shivasharan Srikanteshwara
<shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 12:38:30 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809051235180.1416@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c0f779f1d5ef131c39f9397f97d453e8@mail.gmail.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-05 10:38 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 [this message]
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
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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1809051235180.1416@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=dou_liyang@163.com \
--cc=douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com \
--cc=sumit.saxena@broadcom.com \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
/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).