On 11/01/2017 06:41 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Jes Sorensen <jsoren...@fb.com> wrote: >> On 11/01/2017 01:21 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >> I am all in favor of making the automatic setup better, but assuming an >> automatic setup is always right seems problematic. There could be >> workloads where you may want to assign affinity explicitly. >> >> Jes > > I vaguely remember Nacking Sagi's patch as we knew it would break > mlx5e netdev affinity assumptions. > Anyway we already submitted the mlx5e patch that removed such assumption > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__patchwork.ozlabs.org_patch_809196_&d=DwIBaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=zRrmoWoylV2tnG53v9ZA2w&m=Z6xtsiQVL8xhTauY_DrOWYDhci-D49TqNKLWV_HK5Ug&s=pkxagNCZzy5-ZzMRTxIQ5pDfFq8WOSRdSx5zeQpQdBI&e= > ("net/mlx5e: Distribute RSS > table among all RX rings") > Jes please confirm you have it. > > And I agree here that user should be able to read > /proc/irq/x/smp_affinity and even modify it if required.
Hi Saeed, I can confirm I have that patch - the problem is also present in Linus' current tree. I can read smp_affinity, but I cannot write to it. Cheers, Jes
