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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] nvme-pci: assign separate irq vectors for adminq and
 ioq0
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     axboe@fb.com, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, keith.busch@intel.com
References: <1519832921-13915-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <20180228164726.GB16536@lst.de>
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <fed4d1b1-6d55-b131-f0e1-ccb8262dea18@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:18:47 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180228164726.GB16536@lst.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Christoph

Thanks for your kindly response and directive

On 03/01/2018 12:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

maybe we could add a logic that when get enough irq vectors, assign
separate irq vector to adminq, otherwise sharing.

Sincerely
Jianchao