[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 12:48:46AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > We want some changes in current API which can allow us to pass flags
> > (like *local numa affinity*) and cpu-msix mapping are from local numa node
> > + effective cpu are spread across local numa node.
> What you really want is to split the vector space for your device into two
> blocks. One for the regular per cpu queues and the other (16 or how many
> ever) which are managed separately, i.e. spread out evenly. That needs some
> extensions to the core allocation/management code, but that shouldn't be a
> huge problem.

Note that there are some other uses cases for multiple sets of affinity
managed irqs. Various network devices insist on having separate TX vs
RX interrupts for example.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-11 11:18    [W:0.714 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site