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;
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:46:06 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
cc:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/14] irq: add support for allocating (and affinitizing)
 sets of IRQs
In-Reply-To: <a692fbb3-59ca-0ddb-7abd-67ffc7bfcc1f@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810301845330.5984@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <20181029163738.10172-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20181029163738.10172-12-axboe@kernel.dk> <20181030142601.GA18906@localhost.localdomain> <c11c95ae-5e10-38bd-d2c2-e2407634f52a@kernel.dk> <20181030144527.GB18906@localhost.localdomain>
 <46dbcbcd-799f-9970-a68f-de7e96b1a6bb@kernel.dk> <20181030150840.GC18906@localhost.localdomain> <d049e764-b9d1-f06f-40d3-39517f3f65a2@kernel.dk> <20181030160242.GD18906@localhost.localdomain> <27c1017a-9560-80cb-038d-f64727a162c3@kernel.dk>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810301824570.5984@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <a692fbb3-59ca-0ddb-7abd-67ffc7bfcc1f@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/30/18 11:25 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Jens,
> > 
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2018, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 10/30/18 10:02 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
> >>> pci_alloc_irq_vectors_affinity() starts at the provided max_vecs. If
> >>> that doesn't work, it will iterate down to min_vecs without returning to
> >>> the caller. The caller doesn't have a chance to adjust its sets between
> >>> iterations when you provide a range.
> >>>
> >>> The 'masks' overrun problem happens if the caller provides min_vecs
> >>> as a smaller value than the sum of the set (plus any reserved).
> >>>
> >>> If it's up to the caller to ensure that doesn't happen, then min and
> >>> max must both be the same value, and that value must also be the same as
> >>> the set sum + reserved vectors. The range just becomes redundant since
> >>> it is already bounded by the set.
> >>>
> >>> Using the nvme example, it would need something like this to prevent the
> >>> 'masks' overrun:
> >>
> >> OK, now I hear what you are saying. And you are right, the callers needs
> >> to provide minvec == maxvec for sets, and then have a loop around that
> >> to adjust as needed.
> > 
> > But then we should enforce it in the core code, right?
> 
> Yes, I was going to ask you if you want a followup patch for that, or
> an updated version of the original?

Updated combo patch would be nice :)

Thanks

	lazytglx