Re: mlx5 broken affinity

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/09/2017 10:03 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 11/09/2017 07:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> If that's the attitude at your end, then I do suggest we just revert the
> >> driver changes. Clearly this isn't going to be productive going forward.
> >>
> >> The better solution was to make the managed setup more flexible, but
> >> it doesn't sound like that is going to be viable at all.
> > 
> > That's not true. I indicated several times, that we can do that, but not
> > just by breaking the managed facility.
> > 
> > What I'm arguing against is that the blame is focused on those who
> > implemented the managed facility with the existing semantics.
> > 
> > I'm still waiting for a proper description of what needs to be changed in
> > order to make these drivers work again. All I have seen so far is to break
> > managed interrupts completely and that's not going to happen.
> 
> There's no blame as far as I'm concerned, just frustration that we broke
> this and folks apparently not acknowledging that it's a concern.
> 
> What used to work was that you could move IRQs around as you wanted to.
> That was very useful for custom setups, for tuning, or for isolation
> purposes. None of that works now, which is unfortunate.

Well, its unfortunate and I can understand your frustration, but I really
have a hard time to understand that these concerns have not been brought up
when the whole thing was discussed and in the early stages of
implementation way before it got merged.

It was not my decision to make it the way it is and I merily try to prevent
hasty and damaging hackery right now.

I'll answer to the technical details in a separate mail.

Thanks,

	tglx