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  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]
Date:   Sun, 2 Sep 2018 14:02:30 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Kashyap Desai <>
cc:     Ming Lei <>,
        Sumit Saxena <>,
        Ming Lei <>, Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        Shivasharan Srikanteshwara 
        linux-block <>
Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts

On Fri, 31 Aug 2018, Kashyap Desai wrote:
> > Ok. I misunderstood the whole thing a bit. So your real issue is that you
> > want to have reply queues which are instantaneous, the per cpu ones, and
> > then the extra 16 which do batching and are shared over a set of CPUs,
> > right?
> Yes that is correct.  Extra 16 or whatever should be shared over set of
> CPUs of *local* numa node of the PCI device.

Why restricting it to the local NUMA node of the device? That doesn't
really make sense if you queue lots of requests from CPUs on a different

Why don't you spread these extra interrupts accross all nodes and keep the
locality for the request/reply?

That also would allow to make them properly managed interrupts as you could
shutdown the per node batching interrupts when all CPUs of that node are
offlined and you'd avoid the whole affinity hint irq balancer hackery.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists