From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754992AbcFPPWp (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:22:45 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:55604 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754501AbcFPPWo (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:22:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:22:37 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Bart Van Assche Cc: Christoph Hellwig , tglx@linutronix.de, axboe@fb.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: automatic interrupt affinity for MSI/MSI-X capable devices V2 Message-ID: <20160616152237.GB13615@lst.de> References: <1465934346-20648-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:45:55AM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote: > Is my interpretation correct that for an adapter that supports two > interrupts and on a system with eight CPU cores and no hyperthreading this > patch series will assign interrupt vector 0 to CPU 0 and interrupt vector 1 > to CPU 1? Yes - same as the existing blk-mq queue distribution. > Are you aware that drivers like ib_srp assume that interrupts > have been spread evenly, that means assigning vector 0 to CPU 0 and vector > 1 to CPU 4? which will make them run into a conflict with the current blk-mq assignment. That's exactly the point why we're trying to move things to a core location so that everyone can use the same mapping.