[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200520153123.GA2340@lst.de>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 17:31:23 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io_uring vs CPU hotplug, was Re: [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set
data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 09:20:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Just checked, and it works fine for me. If I create an SQPOLL ring with
> SQ_AFF set and bound to CPU 3, if CPU 3 goes offline, then the kthread
> just appears unbound but runs just fine. When CPU 3 comes online again,
> the mask appears correct.
>
> So don't think there's anything wrong on that side. The affinity is a
> performance optimization, not a correctness issue. Really not much we
> can do if the chosen CPU is offlined, apart from continue to chug along.
Ok, that sounds pretty sensible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists