[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <078e659e-d151-5bc2-a7dd-fe0070267cb3@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:00:01 -0400
From: Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
frederic@...nel.org, sassmann@...hat.com,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, lihong.yang@...el.com,
helgaas@...nel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
jacob.e.keller@...el.com, jlelli@...hat.com, hch@...radead.org,
bhelgaas@...gle.com, mike.marciniszyn@...el.com,
dennis.dalessandro@...el.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
jiri@...dia.com, mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, lgoncalv@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] PCI: Limit pci_alloc_irq_vectors() to housekeeping
CPUs
On 10/20/20 3:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 11:00:05AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> So I think it is important to figure out what that driver really wants
>>> in the nohz_full case. If it wants to retain N interrupts per CPU, and
>>> only reduce the number of CPUs, the proposed interface is wrong.
>> It wants N interrupts per non-isolated (AKA housekeeping) CPU.
> Then the patch is wrong and the interface needs changing from @min_vecs,
> @max_vecs to something that expresses the N*nr_cpus relation.
Reading Marcelo's comment again I think what is really expected is 1
interrupt per non-isolated (housekeeping) CPU (not N interrupts).
My bad that I missed it initially.
--
Thanks
Nitesh
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists