From: Arthur Kepner <akepner@sgi.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] kernel/irq: allow more precise irq affinity policies
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 20:57:51 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100927035751.GI20474@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009232015180.2416@localhost6.localdomain6>
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:36:35PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> I thought more about this and came to the conclusion that this
> facility is completely overengineered and mostly useless except for a
> little detail.
>
> The only problem which it solves is to prevent that we run out of
> vectors on the low numbered cpus when that NIC which insists to create
> one irq per cpu starts up.
Yep, that's the problem.
>
> Fine, I can see that this is a problem, but we do not need this
> complete nightmare to solve it. We can do that way simpler.
>
> 1) There is a patch from your coworker to work around that in the low
> level x86 code, which is probably working, but suboptimal and not
> generic
>
I don't know what you're referring to there.
> 2) We already know that the NIC requested the irq on node N. So when
> we set it up, we just honour the wish of the driver as long as it
> fits in the default (or modified) affinity mask and restrict the
> affinity to the cpus on that very node.
>
> That makes a whole lot of sense: The driver already knows on which
> cpus it wants to see the irq, because it allocated queues and
> stuff there.
>
> So that's probably a 10 lines or less patch do fix that.
> ....
OK, the simple approach is fine with me. I'll send a patch in
a minute.
--
Arthur
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-27 3:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-22 23:52 [RFC/PATCHv2] kernel/irq: allow more precise irq affinity policies Arthur Kepner
2010-09-23 10:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-09-23 18:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-09-27 3:57 ` Arthur Kepner [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100927035751.GI20474@sgi.com \
--to=akepner@sgi.com \
--cc=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox