On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 9:48 PM Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Nitesh Lal wrote: > > > @Jesse do you think the Part-1 findings explain the behavior that you have > > observed in the past? > > > > Also, let me know if there are any suggestions or experiments to try here. > > Wow Nitesh, nice work! That's quite a bit of spelunking you had to do > there! > > Your results that show the older kernels with ranged affinity issues is > consistent with what I remember from that time, and the original > problem. That's nice. > > I'm glad to see that a) Thomas fixed the kernel to even do better than > ranged affinity masks, and that b) if you revert my patch, the new > behavior is better and still maintains the fix from a). Right, the interrupts are naturally spread now. > > For me this explains the whole picture and makes me feel comfortable > with the patch that reverts the initial affinity mask (that also > introduces a subtle bug with the reserved CPUs that I believe you've > noted already). > Thank you for confirming! -- Nitesh
