From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:20:06 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 02/13] irq: Introduce IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED flag
In-Reply-To: <86aa652b-48d0-a7bb-683e-bf43939aa811@sandisk.com>
References: <1465934346-20648-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
 <1465934346-20648-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de>
 <0412b942-ea0d-d4eb-c724-8243d12ff6f3@sandisk.com>
 <20160615102311.GA16619@lst.de>
 <67ef7a1c-56e1-db2c-b038-f9784fc1f52f@sandisk.com>
 <20160615151415.GA1919@localhost.localdomain>
 <7f0b16bd-b39f-99e6-c1c1-6a508bf9bbbf@sandisk.com>
 <20160615160316.GB1919@localhost.localdomain>
 <86aa652b-48d0-a7bb-683e-bf43939aa811@sandisk.com>
Message-ID: <20160616152006.GA13615@lst.de>

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016@09:36:54PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Do you agree that - ignoring other interrupt assignments - that the latter 
> interrupt assignment scheme would result in higher throughput and lower 
> interrupt processing latency?

Probably.  Once we've got it in the core IRQ code we can tweak the
algorithm to be optimal.