On 02/28/2018 11:42 PM, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi Keith
>
> Thanks for your kindly response and directive
>
> On 02/28/2018 11:27 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:53:31AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2018 11:13 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:46:20PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>
> the irqbalance may migrate the adminq irq away from cpu0.
No, irqbalance can't touch managed IRQs. See irq_can_set_affinity_usr().
Hi Keith
Thanks for your kindly response and directive
On 02/28/2018 11:27 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:53:31AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> On 02/27/2018 11:13 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
Currently, admin
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:53:31AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> On 02/27/2018 11:13 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> >> Currently, adminq and ioq0 share the same irq vector. This is
> >> unfair for both amdinq and ioq0.
> >> - For adminq,
Hi Keith
Thanks for your precious time to review this.
On 02/27/2018 11:13 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>> Currently, adminq and ioq0 share the same irq vector. This is
>> unfair for both amdinq and ioq0.
>> - For adminq, its completion
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:46:17PM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> Currently, adminq and ioq0 share the same irq vector. This is
> unfair for both amdinq and ioq0.
> - For adminq, its completion irq has to be bound on cpu0.
> - For ioq0, when the irq fires for io completion, the adminq irq
>act
Currently, adminq and ioq0 share the same irq vector. This is
unfair for both amdinq and ioq0.
- For adminq, its completion irq has to be bound on cpu0.
- For ioq0, when the irq fires for io completion, the adminq irq
action has to be checked also.
To improve this, allocate separate irq vecto
7 matches
Mail list logo