[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100927035751.GI20474@sgi.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:51 -0700
From: Arthur Kepner <akepner@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] kernel/irq: allow more precise irq affinity
policies
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:36:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> I thought more about this and came to the conclusion that this
> facility is completely overengineered and mostly useless except for a
> little detail.
>
> The only problem which it solves is to prevent that we run out of
> vectors on the low numbered cpus when that NIC which insists to create
> one irq per cpu starts up.
Yep, that's the problem.
>
> Fine, I can see that this is a problem, but we do not need this
> complete nightmare to solve it. We can do that way simpler.
>
> 1) There is a patch from your coworker to work around that in the low
> level x86 code, which is probably working, but suboptimal and not
> generic
>
I don't know what you're referring to there.
> 2) We already know that the NIC requested the irq on node N. So when
> we set it up, we just honour the wish of the driver as long as it
> fits in the default (or modified) affinity mask and restrict the
> affinity to the cpus on that very node.
>
> That makes a whole lot of sense: The driver already knows on which
> cpus it wants to see the irq, because it allocated queues and
> stuff there.
>
> So that's probably a 10 lines or less patch do fix that.
> ....
OK, the simple approach is fine with me. I'll send a patch in
a minute.
--
Arthur
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists