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: [IRQ] IRQ affinity not working properly?
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@windriver.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>
References: <a0d5551e-761b-1571-b8e1-5586ec4d9f3b@windriver.com>
 <87blb3ce29.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat Inc,
Message-ID: <fdebec53-097a-d28f-96ec-cfe8d7ef8412@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 09:31:37 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87blb3ce29.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 3/28/21 2:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29 2021 at 13:17, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> I have a CentOS 7 linux system with 48 logical CPUs and a number of

<snip>

>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge      iavf-net1-TxRx-3
>> 961:          0          0          0          0 28492         0 
>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-0000:b5:02.7:mbx
>> 962:          0          0          0          0 435608         0 
>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge      iavf-net1-TxRx-0
>> 963:          0          0          0          0 394832         0 
>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge      iavf-net1-TxRx-1
>> 964:          0          0          0          0 398414         0 
>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge      iavf-net1-TxRx-2
>> 965:          0          0          0          0 192847         0 
>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge      iavf-net1-TxRx-3
>>
>> There were IRQs coming in on the "iavf-0000:b5:02.7:mbx" interrupt at 
>> roughly 1 per second without any traffic, while the interrupt rate on 
>> the "iavf-net1-TxRx-<X>" seemed to be related to traffic.
>>
>> Is this expected?  It seems like the IRQ subsystem is not respecting the 
>> configured SMP affinity for the interrupt in question.  I've also seen 
>> the same behaviour with igb interrupts.
> No it's not expected. Do you see the same behaviour with a recent
> mainline kernel, i.e. 5.10 or 5.11?
>
>

Jesse pointed me to this thread and apologies that it took a while for me
to respond here.

I agree it will be interesting to see with which kernel version Chris is
reproducing the issue.

Initially, I thought that this issue is the same as the one that we have
been discussing in another thread [1].

However, in that case, the smp affinity mask itself is incorrect and doesn't
follow the default smp affinity mask (with irqbalance disabled).


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1a044a14-0884-eedb-5d30-28b4bec24b23@redhat.com/

-- 
Thanks
Nitesh