On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:01 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 05:27:05PM -0400, Nitesh Lal wrote:
> > Hi Leon,
> >
<snip>
> > > >
> > > > Gentle ping.
> > > > Any comments or suggestions on any of the patches included in this series?
> > >
> > > Please wait for -rc1, rebase and resend.
> > > At least i40iw was deleted during merge window.
> > >
> >
> > In -rc1 some non-trivial mlx5 changes also went in. I was going through
> > these changes and it seems after your patch
> >
> > e4e3f24b822f: ("net/mlx5: Provide cpumask at EQ creation phase")
> >
> > we do want to control the affinity for the mlx5 interrupts from the driver.
> > Is that correct?
>
> We would like to create devices with correct affinity from the
> beginning. For this, we will introduce extension to devlink to control
> affinity that will be used prior initialization sequence.
>
> Currently, netdev users who don't want irqbalance are digging into
> their procfs, reconfigure affinity on already existing devices and
> hope for the best.
>
> This is even more cumbersome for the SIOV use case, where every physical
> NIC PCI device will/can create thousands of lightweights netdevs that will
> be forwarded to the containers later. These containers are limited to known
> CPU cores, so no reason do not limit netdev device too.
>
> The same goes for other sub-functions of that PCI device, like RDMA,
> vdpa e.t.c.
>
> > This would mean that we should use irq_set_affinity_and_hint() instead
> > of irq_update_affinity_hint().
>
> I think so.
>
Thanks, will make that change in the patch and re-send.
I will also drop your reviewed-by for the mlx5 patch so that you can
have a look at it again, please let me know if you have any
objections.
--
Thanks
Nitesh
