[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009221803170.2416@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] IRQ: IRQ groups for multiqueue devices
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 21:04 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> [...]
> > Talked to Peter about it and we came to the conclusion, that we should
> > just provide a callback infrastructure in the irq code which does not
> > care about the action behind it. That's going to solve #1,#2,#3,#5,#6
> > and parts of #8
> >
> > That queue/index map code should move to lib/ or some other
> > appropriate place so it can be shared with storage or whatever is
> > going to grow multiqueue. comments #4, #7, #8 (s@...nel/irq@.../@)
> > above still apply :)
>
> OK.
>
> > The modification to the genirq code would be based on registering
> >
> > struct irq_affinity_callback {
> > unsigned int irq;
> > struct kref kref;
> > struct work work;
> > void (*callback)(struct irq_affinity_callback *, const cpumask_t *mask);
> > void (*release)(struct kref *ref);
> > };
> >
> > for an interrupt via
> >
> > int irq_set_affinity_callback(unsigned int irq,
> > struct irq_affinity_callback *cb);
> >
> > That function can be called with cb=NULL to remove the callback. if
> > cb!=NULL, irq, kref and work are initialized.
>
> When should it be called, relative to {request,free}_irq() and
> pci_{disable,enable}_msix()?
It should be called before request_irq and before free_irq. free_irq
will warn when the pointer is !NULL.
> [...]
> > That allows you to do all kind of magic in thread context, updating
> > the queue map, reallocating queue memory when the node affinity
> > changes (I know that you want to), go wild.
>
> I definitely don't want to reallocate queues if node affinity of the IRQ
> is changed by irqbalance, because this will disrupt traffic. So
> changing the node affinity of queues has to be a separate operation.
Fair enough.
> > Thoughts ?
>
> This does look like something I can use, thanks.
Will look into it in the next days.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists