On Mon, Jun 07 2021 at 15:33, Shung-Hsi Yu wrote:
> Most driver's IRQ spreading scheme is naive compared to the IRQ spreading
> scheme introduced since IRQ subsystem rework, so it better to rely
> request_irq() to spread IRQ out.
>
> However, drivers that care about performance enough also tends to try
> allocating memory on the same NUMA node on which the IRQ handler will run.
> For such driver to rely on request_irq() for IRQ spreading, we also need to
> provide an interface to retrieve the CPU index after calling
> request_irq().
So if you are interested in the resulting NUMA node, then why exposing a
random CPU out of the affinity mask instead of exposing a function to
retrieve the NUMA node?
> +/**
> + * irq_get_effective_cpu - Retrieve the effective CPU index
> + * @irq: Target interrupt to retrieve effective CPU index
> + *
> + * When the effective affinity cpumask has multiple CPU toggled, it just
> + * returns the first CPU in the cpumask.
> + */
> +int irq_get_effective_cpu(unsigned int irq)
> +{
> + struct irq_data *data = irq_get_irq_data(irq);
This can be NULL.
> + struct cpumask *m;
> +
> + m = irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(data);
> + return cpumask_first(m);
> +}
Thanks,
tglx
