mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Naman Jain <namjain@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>,
	"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	"linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] nvme-pci: yield completions under scheduler pressure
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 12:21:57 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <04d88297-1732-4761-ae82-d68c441a7156@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR02MB6863FBC36CE4F1D6419F0E8BD4922@MN2PR02MB6863.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>



On 10/9/2026 11:24 AM, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Naman Jain <namjain@linux.microsoft.com> Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2026 10:06 PM
>>
>> On systems with several fast NVMe controllers, completion interrupts can
>> keep returning to the same CPUs faster than scheduled work can run. Each
>> handler may drain only a small number of completions, but the combined
>> interrupt stream can still prevent scheduler and watchdog progress.
> 
> See this recent proposal [1] that sounds like it is addressing the same or a
> similar issue. And there is this [2] more global approach. It's worthwhile to read
> through the discussion on both threads. I haven't done a detailed comparison
> of either vs. your proposal.
> 
> Michael
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/20260818033846.53790-1-changfengnan@bytedance.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20260819124341.4185621-1-lrizzo@google.com/
> 


Thanks for sharing these Michael. I'll check more on these, and try it out.

Regards,
Naman

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-09  6:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-09  5:05 Naman Jain
2026-10-09  5:05 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] nvme-pci: select IRQ_POLL Naman Jain
2026-10-09  5:05 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] nvme-pci: make completion queue polling softirq-safe Naman Jain
2026-10-09  5:05 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] nvme-pci: defer completions when rescheduling is needed Naman Jain
2026-10-09 15:30   ` Keith Busch
2026-10-09  5:54 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] nvme-pci: yield completions under scheduler pressure Michael Kelley
2026-10-09  6:51   ` Naman Jain [this message]
2026-10-09 10:16     ` Naman Jain
2026-10-09 11:27       ` Luigi Rizzo
2026-10-09 14:58         ` Luigi Rizzo
2026-10-09 11:36       ` Fengnan

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=04d88297-1732-4761-ae82-d68c441a7156@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=namjain@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mhklinux@outlook.com \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    /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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®