From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@broadcom.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, hch@lst.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@broadcom.com>,
Shivasharan Srikanteshwara
<shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 11:21:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180911092126.GA10330@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <300d6fef733ca76ced581f8c6304bac6@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 04:16:23PM +0530, Sumit Saxena wrote:
> > Could you explain a bit what the specific use case the extra 16 vectors
> is?
> We are trying to avoid the penalty due to one interrupt per IO completion
> and decided to coalesce interrupts on these extra 16 reply queues.
> For regular 72 reply queues, we will not coalesce interrupts as for low IO
> workload, interrupt coalescing may take more time due to less IO
> completions.
> In IO submission path, driver will decide which set of reply queues
> (either extra 16 reply queues or regular 72 reply queues) to be picked
> based on IO workload.
The point I don't get here is why you need separate reply queues for
the interrupt coalesce setting. Shouldn't this just be a flag at
submission time that indicates the amount of coalescing that should
happen?
What is the benefit of having different completion queues?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-11 9:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <eccc46e12890a1d033d9003837012502@mail.gmail.com>
2018-08-29 8:46 ` Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts Ming Lei
2018-08-29 10:46 ` Sumit Saxena
2018-08-30 17:15 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-31 6:54 ` Ming Lei
2018-08-31 7:50 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-31 20:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-08-31 21:49 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-31 22:48 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-08-31 23:37 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-02 12:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-03 5:34 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-03 16:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-04 10:29 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-05 5:46 ` Dou Liyang
2018-09-05 9:45 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-05 10:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-06 10:14 ` Dou Liyang
2018-09-06 11:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-11 9:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-09-11 9:38 ` Dou Liyang
2018-09-11 9:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-09-03 2:13 ` Ming Lei
2018-09-03 6:10 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-03 9:21 ` Ming Lei
2018-09-03 9:50 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-09-11 9:21 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2018-09-11 9:54 ` Kashyap Desai
2018-08-28 6:47 Sumit Saxena
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=20180911092126.GA10330@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kashyap.desai@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=shivasharan.srikanteshwara@broadcom.com \
--cc=sumit.saxena@broadcom.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).