[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <xhsmhleolmyz8.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2022 12:07:07 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...dia.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Gal Pressman <gal@...dia.com>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] sched, net: NUMA-aware CPU spreading interface
On 08/11/22 13:25, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> On 11/3/2022 4:56 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Oct 2022 17:49:56 +0100 Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>> Tariq pointed out in [1] that drivers allocating IRQ vectors would benefit
>>> from having smarter NUMA-awareness (cpumask_local_spread() doesn't quite cut
>>> it).
>>>
>>> The proposed interface involved an array of CPUs and a temporary cpumask, and
>>> being my difficult self what I'm proposing here is an interface that doesn't
>>> require any temporary storage other than some stack variables (at the cost of
>>> one wild macro).
>>>
>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220728191203.4055-1-tariqt@nvidia.com/
>>
>> Not sure who's expected to take these, no preference here so:
>>
>> Acked-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
>>
>> Thanks for ironing it out!
>
> Thanks Jakub.
>
> Valentin, what do you think?
> Shouldn't it go through the sched branch?
So yeah the topology bits should go through tip/sched/core, and given it's
the only user of the new interface, the mlx5e one should probably be
bundled with them.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists