[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811041259350.3160@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 13:02:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Long Li <longli@...uxonhyperv.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] irq: fix support for allocating sets of IRQs
Jens,
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/2/18 8:59 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > As I mentioned, there are at least two issues in the patch of '
> > irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing) sets of IRQs':
> >
> > 1) it is wrong to pass 'mask + usedvec' to irq_build_affinity_masks()
> >
> > 2) we should spread all possible CPUs in 2-stage way on each set of IRQs
> >
> > The fix isn't trivial, and I introduce two extra patches as preparation,
> > then the implementation can be more clean.
> >
> > The patchset is against mq-maps branch of block tree, feel free to
> > integrate into the whole patchset of multiple queue maps.
>
> Thanks Ming, I ran this through my testing, and I end up with the
> same maps and affinities for all the cases I cared about. I'm going
> to drop my initial version, and add the three.
So I assume, that I can pick up Mings series instead.
There is another patch pending affecting the irq affinity spreading. Can
you folks please have a look at it?
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181102180248.13583-1-longli@linuxonhyperv.com
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists