linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/9] IB: add a proper completion queue abstraction

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151122101308.GA12189@lst.de>
Date:	Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:13:08 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Sagi Grimberg <sagig@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc:	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
	"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] IB: add a proper completion queue abstraction

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:51:13AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>
>> Hello Christoph,
>>
>> The comment about locality in the above quote is interesting. How about
>> modifying patch 2/9 as indicated below ? The modification below does not
>> change the behavior of this patch if ib_cq.w.cpu is not modified. And it
>> allows users who care about locality and who want to skip the scheduler
>> overhead by setting ib_cq.w.cpu to the index of the CPU they want the
>> work to be processed on.
>
> That sounds acceptable...

Wouldn't it be a better idea to set the WQ_SYSFS interface and use
the standard sysfs interface for specifying cpumasks or node affinity?
--
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/