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  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:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:50:13 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc:     Peter Xu <>, Christoph Hellwig <>,
        Jason Wang <>,
        Luiz Capitulino <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>,
Subject: Re: Virtio-scsi multiqueue irq affinity

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Ming,
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:02:13PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > One thing I can think of is the real-time scenario where "isolcpus="
> > > is provided, then logically we should not allow any isolated CPUs to
> > > be bound to any of the multi-queue IRQs.  Though Ming Lei and I had a
> > 
> > So far, this behaviour is made by user-space.
> > 
> > >From my understanding, IRQ subsystem doesn't handle "isolcpus=", even
> > though the Kconfig help doesn't mention irq affinity affect:
> > 
> >           Make sure that CPUs running critical tasks are not disturbed by
> >           any source of "noise" such as unbound workqueues, timers, kthreads...
> >           Unbound jobs get offloaded to housekeeping CPUs. This is driven by
> >           the "isolcpus=" boot parameter.
> isolcpus has no effect on the interupts. That's what 'irqaffinity=' is for.


irq_default_affinity is built from 'irqaffinity=', however, we don't
consider irq_default_affinity for managed IRQ affinity.

Looks Peter wants to exclude some CPUs from the spread on managed IRQ.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists