Received: by 10.223.185.116 with SMTP id b49csp6401282wrg;
        Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:48:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x224yPdZzAOlwhs1c6BEwr0mdJ3zZRcJX8wBUOu7/wk6SV2xMq9vlokcV9tqS+Nz1mNeJA2ap
X-Received: by 10.99.125.69 with SMTP id m5mr14512369pgn.77.1519836527016;
        Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:48:47 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1519836526; cv=none;
        d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        b=hNGAOEBenzWVx9f2rGl4nrWMkDJeHMdH2I2QoWbeDwzzZxaKZ38Uz7oBWtdFpE8omr
         AP4bl4JKZi0WMpRztq1gzFMCm2w41eUPbygc+6qydYYS2nlwIKbrE8fpZE2K/izoDCWM
         6yMaJgf/z2j4cShdsKEF2asV8lByDvsxjZbajx1xhj634//zEqkdUve/igHIYu/JalJm
         aATBaabaU1/1AfI1ahw4TbQ51qWimDDuVMFWUulWxjiorWOm2EN1NKhZ+tmxcelCt9+5
         Zq3OtCeoX8MU/h0Mn/saIv3v2flixfom65Zc7BqbPE/1Q2DFj59tgik9oxW4rOPHc7aL
         bYfg==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;
        h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to
         :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc
         :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results;
        bh=6hk3MyHt4OxMm/NUcuTcjdAUawv+y71Eip/s/sCpFMg=;
        b=pp3Hez7DXRlJFNt4ED+cjd37koSLKfPquFmNOG7i0DSsVpXsym8/1Y6gmUx7vgZqX7
         9Uxl5LtxhNxZGJotDotIITXSv0528OE8pw8x6/ihnJ8AIh4gA6hO9bhwTepqKhKLfA2n
         bGkGryKixv1urkgjzzi1tRIL3iDf8AnBaqynor25AKVtHm5NInYutNPM2npbSQk+IYyQ
         VUbQZ6MS0axgZBlK7MnLXhiR+Tw4dK4CCCyofxYOlJKV5jJAXRehsfu6eJ423Q8X5SCw
         2VqngP8RaTM2hl6V9oWFZeJKWFWppoZDIhO+08xnDqd5giMg//xUwVsRcuzg/EfhvtR/
         Tykg==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id t199si1234148pgb.105.2018.02.28.08.48.32;
        Wed, 28 Feb 2018 08:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
       spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753323AbeB1Qra (ORCPT <rfc822;speed.demon0047@gmail.com>
        + 99 others); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:47:30 -0500
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:54470 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1753058AbeB1Qr2 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:47:28 -0500
Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407)
        id E76FE6FA92; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:47:26 +0100 (CET)
Date:   Wed, 28 Feb 2018 17:47:26 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc:     keith.busch@intel.com, axboe@fb.com, hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq
        and ioq0
Message-ID: <20180228164726.GB16536@lst.de>
References: <1519832921-13915-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1519832921-13915-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Note that we originally allocates irqs this way, and Keith changed
it a while ago for good reasons.  So I'd really like to see good
reasons for moving away from this, and some heuristics to figure
out which way to use.  E.g. if the device supports more irqs than
I/O queues your scheme might always be fine.