[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507151408570.18576@nanos>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:12:39 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
cc: ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] IRQ affinity
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Many years ago we decided to move setting of IRQ to core affnities to
> userspace with the irqbalance daemon.
>
> These days we have systems with lots of MSI-X vector, and we have
> hardware and subsystem support for per-CPU I/O queues in the block
> layer, the RDMA subsystem and probably the network stack (I'm not too
> familar with the recent developments there). It would really help the
> out of the box performance and experience if we could allow such
> subsystems to bind interrupt vectors to the node that the queue is
> configured on.
>
> I'd like to discuss if the rationale for moving the IRQ affinity setting
> fully to userspace are still correct in todays world any any pitfalls
> we'll have to learn from in irqbalanced and the old in-kernel affinity
> code.
I think setting an initial affinity is not going to create the horror
of the old in-kernel irq balancer again. It still could be changed
from user space and does not try to be smart by moving interrupts
around in circles all the time.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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