[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <876cd3e2-7519-eab9-7da6-2a672256365e@163.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 17:38:19 +0800
From: Dou Liyang <dou_liyang@....com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shivasharan Srikanteshwara
<shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
Hi,
At 09/11/2018 05:13 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:46:46PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> I think the right solution for these pre/post vectors is to _NOT_ mark
>> them managed and leave them as regular interrupts which can be affinity
>> controlled and also can move freely on hotplug.
>
> Yes, agreed. Marking the pre/post vector as managed was a mistake
> (and I don't think it even was intentional, at least on my part).
>
Got it !
And, I am trying to fix this by:
-Don't set affinity for pre/post vectors in
irq_create_affinity_masks().
-And do not setup the desc->affinity of pre/post vectors in
alloc_msi_entry().
So, the affinity in alloc_descs() will be NULL, and the interrupt won't
be marked as IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED.
Is it OK? and I will show the codes after testing it.
Thanks,
dou
Powered by blists - more mailing lists