From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:45952 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750895AbcGDIiw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Jul 2016 04:38:52 -0400
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:38:49 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, 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 11/13] blk-mq: allow the driver to pass in an affinity
	mask
Message-ID: <20160704083849.GA3585@lst.de>
References: <1465934346-20648-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1465934346-20648-12-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160704081540.GA2783@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20160704081540.GA2783@agordeev.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com>
Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-pci.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +static int blk_mq_create_mq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> > +		const struct cpumask *affinity_mask)
> > +{
> > +	int queue = -1, cpu = 0;
> > +
> > +	set->mq_map = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*set->mq_map) * nr_cpu_ids,
> > +			GFP_KERNEL, set->numa_node);
> > +	if (!set->mq_map)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	if (!affinity_mask)
> > +		return 0;	/* map all cpus to queue 0 */
> > +
> > +	/* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
> > +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > +		if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
> > +			queue++;
> 
> CPUs missing in an affinity mask are mapped to hctxs. Is that intended?

Yes - each CPU needs to be mapped to some hctx, otherwise we can't
submit I/O from that CPU.

> > +		if (queue > 0)
> 
> Why this check?
> 
> > +			set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;

mq_map is initialized to zero already, so we don't really need the
assignment for queue 0.  The reason why this check exists is because
we start with queue = -1 and we never want to assignment -1 to mq_map.