From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:20:06 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Keith Busch , Christoph Hellwig , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "axboe@fb.com" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] irq: Introduce IRQD_AFFINITY_MANAGED flag Message-ID: <20160616152006.GA13615@lst.de> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <86aa652b-48d0-a7bb-683e-bf43939aa811@sandisk.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 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.