Re: [PATCH v9 09/13] isolation: Introduce io_queue isolcpus type

Ming Lei
2026-04-04T04:44:40Z

On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 08:50:55PM -0400, Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2026 at 11:09:40AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2026-04-01 16:58:22 [-0400], Aaron Tomlin wrote:
> > > Hi Sebastian,
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Thank you for taking the time to document the "managed_irq" behaviour; it
> > > is immensely helpful. You raise a highly pertinent point regarding the
> > > potential proliferation of "isolcpus=" flags. It is certainly a situation
> > > that must be managed carefully to prevent every subsystem from demanding
> > > its own bit.
> > >
> > > To clarify the reasoning behind introducing "io_queue" rather than strictly
> > > relying on managed_irq:
> > >
> > > The managed_irq flag belongs firmly to the interrupt subsystem. It dictates
> > > whether a CPU is eligible to receive hardware interrupts whose affinity is
> > > managed by the kernel. Whilst many modern block drivers use managed IRQs,
> > > the block layer multi-queue mapping encompasses far more than just
> > > interrupt routing. It maps logical queues to CPUs to handle I/O submission,
> > > software queues, and crucially, poll queues, which do not utilise
> > > interrupts at all. Furthermore, there are specific drivers that do not use
> > > the managed IRQ infrastructure but still rely on the block layer for queue
> > > distribution.
> >
> > Could you tell block which queue maps to which CPU at /sys/block/$$/mq/
> > level? Then you have one queue going to one CPU.
> > Then the drive could request one or more interrupts managed or not. For
> > managed you could specify a CPU mask which you desire to occupy.
> > You have the case where
> > - you have more queues than CPUs
> > - use all of them
> > - use less
> > - less queues than CPUs
> > - mapped a queue to more than once CPU in case it goes down or becomes
> > not available
> > - mapped to one CPU
> >
> > Ideally you solve this at one level so that the device(s) can request
> > less queues than CPUs if told so without patching each and every driver.
> >
> > This should give you the freedom to isolate CPUs, decide at boot time
> > which CPUs get I/O queues assigned. At run time you can tell which
> > queues go to which CPUs. If you shutdown a queue, the interrupt remains
> > but does not get any I/O requests assigned so no problem. If the CPU
> > goes down, same thing.
> >
> > I am trying to come up with a design here which I haven't found so far.
> > But I might be late to the party and everyone else is fully aware.
> >
> > > If managed_irq were solely relied upon, the IRQ subsystem would
> > > successfully keep hardware interrupts off the isolated CPUs, but the block
> >
> > The managed_irqs can't be influence by userland. The CPUs are auto
> > distributed.
> >
> > > layer would still blindly map polling queues or non-managed queues to those
> > > same isolated CPUs. This would force isolated CPUs to process I/O
> > > submissions or handle polling tasks, thereby breaking the strict isolation.
> > >
> > > Regarding the point about the networking subsystem, it is a very valid
> > > comparison. If the networking layer wishes to respect isolcpus in the
> > > future, adding a net flag would indeed exacerbate the bit proliferation.
> >
> > Networking could also have different cases like adding a RX filter and
> > having HW putting packet based on it in a dedicated queue. But also in
> > this case I would like to have the freedome to decide which isolated
> > CPUs should receive interrupts/ traffic and which don't.
> >
> > > For the present time, retaining io_queue seems the most prudent approach to
> > > ensure that block queue mapping remains semantically distinct from
> > > interrupt delivery. This provides an immediate and clean architectural
> > > boundary. However, if the consensus amongst the maintainers suggests that
> > > this is too granular, alternative approaches could certainly be considered
> > > for the future. For instance, a broader, more generic flag could be
> > > introduced to encompass both block and future networking queue mappings.
> > > Alternatively, if semantic conflation is deemed acceptable, the existing
> > > managed_irq housekeeping mask could simply be overloaded within the block
> > > layer to restrict all queue mappings.
> > >
> > > Keeping the current separation appears to be the cleanest solution for this
> > > series, but your thoughts, and those of the wider community, on potentially
> > > migrating to a consolidated generic flag in the future would be very much
> > > welcomed.
> >
> > I just don't like introducing yet another boot argument, making it a
> > boot constraint while in my naive view this could be managed at some
> > degree via sysfs as suggested above.
>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> I believe it would be more prudent to defer to Thomas Gleixner and Jens
> Axboe on this matter.
>
>
> Indeed, I am entirely sympathetic to your reluctance to introduce yet
> another boot parameter, and I concur that run-time configurability
> represents the ideal scenario for system tuning.

`io_queue` introduces cost of potential failure on offlining CPU, so how
can it replace the existing `managed_irq`?

>
> At present, a device such as an NVMe controller allocates its hardware
> queues and requests its interrupt vectors during the initial device probe
> phase. The block layer calculates the optimal queue to CPU mapping based on
> the system topology at that precise moment. Altering this mapping
> dynamically at runtime via sysfs would be an exceptionally intricate
> undertaking. It would necessitate freezing all active operations, tearing
> down the physical hardware queues on the device, renegotiating the
> interrupt vectors with the peripheral component interconnect subsystem, and
> finally reconstructing the entire queue map.
>
> Furthermore, the proposed io_queue boot parameter successfully achieves the
> objective of avoiding driver level modifications. By applying the
> housekeeping mask constraint centrally within the core block layer mapping
> helpers, all multiqueue drivers automatically inherit the CPU isolation
> boundaries without requiring a single line of code to be changed within the
> individual drivers themselves.
>
> Because the hardware queue count and CPU alignment must be calculated as
> the device initialises, a reliable mechanism is required to inform the
> block layer of which CPUs are strictly isolated before the probe sequence
> commences. This is precisely why integrating with the existing boot time
> housekeeping infrastructure is currently the most viable and robust
> solution.
>
> Whilst a fully dynamic sysfs driven reconfiguration architecture would be a
> great, it would represent a substantial paradigm shift for the block layer.
> For the present time, the io_queue flag resolves the immediate and severe
> latency issues experienced by users with isolated CPUs, employing an
> established and safe methodology.

I'd suggest to document the exact existing problem, cause `managed_irq`
should cover it in try-best way, so people can know how to select the two
parameters.

Thanks,
Ming