Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq/proc: Show percpu irq affinity
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
CC:     <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Shiyuan Hu <hushiyuan@huawei.com>,
        Hewenliang <hewenliang4@huawei.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
References: <87mu2moqvl.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <9f8b9f2f-b5f9-35c8-ff5e-22b5d0f347bb@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:39:44 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87mu2moqvl.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 2020/8/22 19:35, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22 2020 at 17:33, Yunfeng Ye wrote:
>> On 2020/8/13 16:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> For example, the cmdline "irqaffinity=0,1,126,127" on the 128 cores system：
>>
>> [root@localhost ~]# cat /proc/irq/4/smp_affinity_list
>> 0-1,126-127
>>
>> The irq 4 is "arch_timer" interrupt, which is a percpu interrupt.
>>
>> So is it necessary to show the percpu irq affinity correct?
> 
> Yes, it makes sense to do so, but you used the wrong check. The correct
> one is:
> 
> irq_settings_is_per_cpu_devid()
> 
> which will not wreckage the output for other per cpu marked interrupts
> which never set the percpu_affinity pointer with the obvious
> consequences... The pointer would need a NULL check in any case, but it
> might be more straight forward to update affinity when percpu_affinity
> is initialized. Haven't looked in detail though.
> 
ok, I will send the patch v2, thanks.

> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
> 
> .
>