[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aBl_Zn7aHbUTmPSE@fedora>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 11:17:58 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Wagner <wagi@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Costa Shulyupin <costa.shul@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, storagedev@...rochip.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
GR-QLogic-Storage-Upstream@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/9] blk: honor isolcpus configuration
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 08:19:39PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> I've added back the isolcpus io_queue agrument. This avoids any semantic
> changes of managed_irq.
IMO, this is correct thing to do.
> I don't like it but I haven't found a
> better way to deal with it. Ming clearly stated managed_irq should not
> change.
Precisely, we can't cause io hang and break existing managed_irq applications,
especially you know there isn't kernel solution for it, same for v5, v6 or
whatever.
I will look at v6 this week.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists