[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160616152006.GA13615@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:20:06 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] irq: Introduce IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED flag
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:36:54PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Do you agree that - ignoring other interrupt assignments - that the latter
> interrupt assignment scheme would result in higher throughput and lower
> interrupt processing latency?
Probably. Once we've got it in the core IRQ code we can tweak the
algorithm to be optimal.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists