From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751660AbeCNJrs (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2018 05:47:48 -0400 Received: from mail.cn.fujitsu.com ([183.91.158.132]:11484 "EHLO heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751015AbeCNJrq (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2018 05:47:46 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,368,1503331200"; d="scan'208";a="37817336" Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible To: , "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Ming Lei , Thomas Gleixner , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , , Laurence Oberman References: <20180308105358.1506-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <1520515113.20980.31.camel@gmail.com> <20180308133440.GA2713@ming.t460p> <20180309012458.GD5228@ming.t460p> <20180309120833.GB30257@ming.t460p> <5e5f3852-5314-c479-245e-d0a575e533a5@cn.fujitsu.com> <1520926721.20980.210.camel@gmail.com> <20180313083535.GA21612@ming.t460p> <1520930375.20980.213.camel@gmail.com> <1521018450.20980.220.camel@gmail.com> From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: <3c2f886e-6cb9-a8b4-5f95-ffceb039843d@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:47:39 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1521018450.20980.220.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.167.226.106] X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 12D414D0EFF7.ADCC6 X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Artern, At 03/14/2018 05:07 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 12:11 +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: >>> At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy >>>>> Longer term, yeah, I agree. Kernel's notion of possible CPU >>>>> count >>>>> should be realistic. >>> >>> I did a patch for that, Artem, could you help me to test it. >>> >> >> I didn't consider the nr_cpu_ids before. please ignore the old patch >> and >> try the following RFC patch. > > Sure I can help with testing a patch, could we please: > > 1. Start a new thread for this > 2. Include ACPI forum/folks > OK, I will do that right now. Thanks, dou > Thanks, > Artem. > > >