On 06/16/2016 05:20 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:36:54PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
Do you agree that - ignoring other interrupt assignments - that the latter
interrupt assignment scheme would result in higher throughput and lower
interrupt processing latency?
Probably. Once we've got it in the core IRQ code we can tweak the
algorithm to be optimal.
Sorry but I'm afraid that we are embedding policy in the kernel,
something we should not do. I know that there are workloads for which
dedicating some CPU cores to interrupt processing and other CPU cores to
running kernel threads improves throughput, probably because this
results in less cache eviction on the CPU cores that run kernel threads
and some degree of interrupt coalescing on the CPU cores that process
interrupts. My concern is that I doubt that there is an interrupt
assignment scheme that works optimally for all workloads. Hence my
request to preserve the ability to modify interrupt affinity from user
space.
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
