[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9384acdc-a5d8-872c-0034-9a3869f4fc8b@grimberg.me>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:14:56 +0200
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Jes Sorensen <jsorensen@...com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>
Cc: Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...lanox.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: mlx5 broken affinity
> This wasn't to start a debate about which allocation method is the
> perfect solution. I am perfectly happy with the new default, the part
> that is broken is to take away the user's option to reassign the
> affinity. That is a bug and it needs to be fixed!
Well,
I would really want to wait for Thomas/Christoph to reply, but this
simple change fixed it for me:
--
diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index 573dc52b0806..eccd06be5e44 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -146,8 +146,7 @@ bool irq_can_set_affinity_usr(unsigned int irq)
{
struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
- return __irq_can_set_affinity(desc) &&
- !irqd_affinity_is_managed(&desc->irq_data);
+ return __irq_can_set_affinity(desc);
}
/**
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists