From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752954AbaAXTLg (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:11:36 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:48025 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752518AbaAXTLb (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:11:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:11:29 -0800 From: Jens Axboe To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: ipi_redirect vs rq_affinity Message-ID: <20140124191129.GG7483@kernel.dk> References: <20140124132234.GA8553@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140124132234.GA8553@infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 24 2014, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Jens, > > it seems like blk-mq uses the ipi_redirect attribute in pretty much the > same way as the old blk-softirq code used the rq_affinity one, except > that the old code has an additional option to direct into any core in > the current package. > > Is there any good reason to not reuse the old name and semantics? It is pretty much the same. I don't like the semantics of the old one, where it's 0/1/2 for off/on/different-on, though. Seems like now would be a good time to clean it up. -- Jens Axboe