[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <40d6e3d4-7e63-0d23-3e5c-a877cebd539a@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 16:08:51 +0100
From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] pci: add pci_irq_get_affinity_vector()
On 11/08/2016 03:56 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:47:21AM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>> Add a reverse-mapping function to return the interrupt vector for
>> any CPU if interrupt affinity is enabled.
>
> What's the use case of it?
>
> Also as-is this won't work due to the non-affinity vectors that
> have the affinity set to all cpus. It will get even worse if we have
> to support things like virtio_net that have multiple interrupts per
> CPU due to the send and receive virtqueues.
>
The use-case here is that one needs to feed the MSI-X index into the
driver command structure. While we can extract that number trivially
with scsi-mq, but for scsi-sq we don't have such means.
So if we start assigning interrupt affinity per default we need to
figure out the msi-x index from a given SCSI command.
Currently most of these drivers keep an internal CPU map which I'd love
to get rid of.
Hence this patch.
And before you complain: Yes, this patch is wrong; it returns the vector
and not the index (which is what I'm after).
I found that on my test machine :-(
The main impetus of this RFC is to figure out if such a function would
have a chance of getting upstream, or if I have to continue use cpumaps
in the drivers.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@...e.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists