On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 09:56:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 06:50:37PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > We have to ask driver to re-caculate set vectors after the whole IRQ > > > vectors are allocated later, and the result needs to be stored in 'affd'. > > > Also both the two interfaces are core APIs, which should be trusted. > > > > s/re-caculate/recalculate/ > > s/stored in 'affd'/stored in '*affd'/ > > s/both the two/both/ > > > > This is a little confusing because you're talking about both "IRQ > > vectors" and these other "set vectors", which I think are different > > things. I assume the "set vectors" are cpumasks showing the affinity > > of the IRQ vectors with some CPUs? > > I think we should drop the whole vector wording completely. > > The driver does not care about vectors, it only cares about a block of > interrupt numbers. These numbers are kernel managed and the interrupts just > happen to have a CPU vector assigned at some point. Depending on the CPU > architecture the underlying mechanism might not even be named vector. Perhaps longer term we could move affinity mask creation from the irq subsystem into a more generic library. Interrupts aren't the only resource that want to spread across CPUs. For example, blk-mq has it's own implementation to for polled queues, so I think a non-irq specific implementation would be a nice addition to the kernel lib.
