From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] IB: add a proper completion queue abstraction Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 11:13:08 +0100 Message-ID: <20151122101308.GA12189@lst.de> References: <1447422410-20891-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1447422410-20891-3-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <564B697A.2020601@sandisk.com> <564C2F01.6020407@dev.mellanox.co.il> <564CC15E.7030602@sandisk.com> <20151120101644.GC24298@lst.de> <564F4F38.9040505@sandisk.com> <56519011.6060204@dev.mellanox.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56519011.6060204@dev.mellanox.co.il> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sagi Grimberg Cc: Bart Van Assche , Christoph Hellwig , "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" , "axboe@fb.com" , "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:51:13AM +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > >> Hello Christoph, >> >> The comment about locality in the above quote is interesting. How about >> modifying patch 2/9 as indicated below ? The modification below does not >> change the behavior of this patch if ib_cq.w.cpu is not modified. And it >> allows users who care about locality and who want to skip the scheduler >> overhead by setting ib_cq.w.cpu to the index of the CPU they want the >> work to be processed on. > > That sounds acceptable... Wouldn't it be a better idea to set the WQ_SYSFS interface and use the standard sysfs interface for specifying cpumasks or node affinity?