Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Ming, On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Thoughts? > > Given this patchset doesn't have effect on normal machines without > supporting physical CPU hotplug, it can fix performance regression on > machines which might

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Hi Thomas, On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:08:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:08:54AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > So my understanding is that these irq patches are enhancements and > > > > > not bug > > > > > fixes.

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 10:39 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Lo! Your friendly Linux regression tracker here ;-) > > On 08.03.2018 14:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so >

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Lo! Your friendly Linux regression tracker here ;-) On 08.03.2018 14:18, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: >> This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so >> that we can avoid to allocate too less irq vectors with online CPUs >>

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

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

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

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

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Hi Artem, At 03/14/2018 11:29 AM, Dou Liyang wrote: Hi All, At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Hi Rafael, Thank you so much for your reply. At 03/13/2018 05:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Dou Liyang wrote: Hi Thomas, At 03/09/2018 11:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: [...] I'm not sure if there is a clear indicator whether

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Hi All, At 03/13/2018 05:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible CPU count accurate because there are other resources

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Dou Liyang wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > At 03/09/2018 11:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > [...] >> >> >> I'm not sure if there is a clear indicator whether physcial hotplug is >> supported or not, but the ACPI folks (x86) and architecture

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 16:35 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Then looks this issue need to fix by making possible CPU count > accurate > because there are other resources allocated according to > num_possible_cpus(), > such as percpu variables. Short term the regression should be fixed. It is already

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 09:38:41AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2018-03-13 at 11:11 +0800, Dou Liyang wrote: > > I also > > met the situation that BIOS told to ACPI that it could support > > physical > > CPUs hotplug, But actually, there was no hardware slots in the > > machine. > >

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

Hi Thomas, At 03/09/2018 11:08 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: [...] I'm not sure if there is a clear indicator whether physcial hotplug is supported or not, but the ACPI folks (x86) and architecture maintainers +cc Rafael should be able to answer that question. I have a machine which says:

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:08:54AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > So my understanding is that these irq patches are enhancements and not > > > > bug > > > > fixes. I'll queue them for 4.17 then. > > > > > > Wrt. this IO hang issue, these patches

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 11:08:54AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two: > > > >

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two: > > > > > > 0c20244d458e scsi: megaraid_sas: fix selection of reply queue > >

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:00:08AM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 09:24 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 09:24 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:20:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > > > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following > > > two: > > > > > > 0c20244d458e scsi:

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Ming Lei wrote: > Actually, it isn't a real fix, the real one is in the following two: > > 0c20244d458e scsi: megaraid_sas: fix selection of reply queue > ed6d043be8cd scsi: hpsa: fix selection of reply queue Where are these commits? Neither Linus tree not -next

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:18:33PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so > > that we can avoid to allocate too less irq vectors with online CPUs > > mapped. > > >

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 15:18 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > Tested-by: Artem Bityutskiy > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1519311270.2535.53.ca...@intel.com And for completeness: Linux-Regression-ID: lr#15a115

Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] genirq/affinity: irq vector spread among online CPUs as far as possible

On Thu, 2018-03-08 at 18:53 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > Hi, > > This patchset tries to spread among online CPUs as far as possible, so > that we can avoid to allocate too less irq vectors with online CPUs > mapped. > > For example, in a 8cores system, 4 cpu cores(4~7) are offline/non present, > on