linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and ioq0

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <ddfc2ab4-1a51-c488-25e8-bc434edf8aba@grimberg.me>
Date:   Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:28:58 +0200
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc:     keith.busch@...el.com, axboe@...com,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and
 ioq0


> Note that we originally allocates irqs this way, and Keith changed
> it a while ago for good reasons.  So I'd really like to see good
> reasons for moving away from this, and some heuristics to figure
> out which way to use.  E.g. if the device supports more irqs than
> I/O queues your scheme might always be fine.

I still don't understand what this buys us in practice. Seems redundant
to allocate another vector without any (even marginal) difference.