linux-kernel - RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0b542db5145d878ef1b839387445987d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:24:22 +0530
From:   Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Shivasharan Srikanteshwara 
        <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com>
Subject: RE: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts

>
> The point I don't get here is why you need separate reply queues for
> the interrupt coalesce setting.  Shouldn't this just be a flag at
> submission time that indicates the amount of coalescing that should
> happen?
>
> What is the benefit of having different completion queues?

Having different set of queues (it will is something like N:16 where N
queues are without interrupt coalescing and 16 dedicated queues for
interrupt coalescing) we want to avoid penalty introduced by interrupt
coalescing especially for lower QD profiles.

Kashyap