On 2019/7/27 7:18, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 10:05 +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2019/7/25 3:24, Saeed Mahameed wrote: >>> On Wed, 2019-07-24 at 11:18 +0800, Huazhong Tan wrote: >>>> From: Yunsheng Lin <[email protected]> >>>> > > [...] >>>> >>>> +static void hclge_irq_affinity_notify(struct irq_affinity_notify >>>> *notify, >>>> + const cpumask_t *mask) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct hclge_dev *hdev = container_of(notify, struct hclge_dev, >>>> + affinity_notify); >>>> + >>>> + cpumask_copy(&hdev->affinity_mask, mask); >>>> + del_timer_sync(&hdev->service_timer); >>>> + hdev->service_timer.expires = jiffies + HZ; >>>> + add_timer_on(&hdev->service_timer, cpumask_first(&hdev- >>>>> affinity_mask)); >>>> +} >>> >>> I don't see any relation between your misc irq vector and &hdev- >>>> service_timer, to me this looks like an abuse of the irq affinity >>>> API >>> to allow the user to move the service timer affinity. >> >> Hi, thanks for reviewing. >> >> hdev->service_timer is used to schedule the periodic work >> queue hdev->service_taskļ¼ we want all the management work >> queue including hdev->service_task to bind to the same cpu >> to improve cache and power efficiency, it is better to move >> service timer affinity according to that. >> >> The hdev->service_task is changed to delay work queue in >> next patch " net: hns3: make hclge_service use delayed workqueue", >> So the affinity in the timer of the delay work queue is automatically >> set to the affinity of the delay work queue, we will move the >> "make hclge_service use delayed workqueue" patch before the >> "add interrupt affinity support for misc interrupt" patch, so >> we do not have to set service timer affinity explicitly. >> >> Also, There is there work queues(mbx_service_task, service_task, >> rst_service_task) in the hns3 driver, we plan to combine them >> to one or two workqueue to improve efficiency and readability. >> > > So just to make it clear, you have 3 deferred works, 2 are triggered by > the misc irq and 1 is periodic, you want them all on the same core and > you want to control their affinity via the irq affinity ? for works #1 > and #2 you get that for free since the irq is triggering them, but for > work #3 (the periodic one) you need to manually move it when the irq > affinity changes.
Yes, You are right. > > I guess i am ok with this, since moving the irq affinity isn't only > required by the periodic work but also for the other works that the irq > is actually triggering (so it is not an actual abuse, sort of .. ) > > >
