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:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 17:50:13 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, minlei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Virtio-scsi multiqueue irq affinity
Message-ID: <20190325095011.GA23225@ming.t460p>
References: <20190318062150.GC6654@xz-x1>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903231805310.1798@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <20190325050213.GH9149@xz-x1>
 <20190325070616.GA9642@ming.t460p>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903250948490.1798@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1903250948490.1798@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 09:53:28AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Ming,
> 
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 01:02:13PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > One thing I can think of is the real-time scenario where "isolcpus="
> > > is provided, then logically we should not allow any isolated CPUs to
> > > be bound to any of the multi-queue IRQs.  Though Ming Lei and I had a
> > 
> > So far, this behaviour is made by user-space.
> > 
> > >From my understanding, IRQ subsystem doesn't handle "isolcpus=", even
> > though the Kconfig help doesn't mention irq affinity affect:
> > 
> >           Make sure that CPUs running critical tasks are not disturbed by
> >           any source of "noise" such as unbound workqueues, timers, kthreads...
> >           Unbound jobs get offloaded to housekeeping CPUs. This is driven by
> >           the "isolcpus=" boot parameter.
> 
> isolcpus has no effect on the interupts. That's what 'irqaffinity=' is for.

Indeed.

irq_default_affinity is built from 'irqaffinity=', however, we don't
consider irq_default_affinity for managed IRQ affinity.

Looks Peter wants to exclude some CPUs from the spread on managed IRQ.

Thanks,
Ming