Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221205084127.535-1-xieyongji@bytedance.com> <20221205084127.535-6-xieyongji@bytedance.com>
 <CACGkMEvkTJn7Hm5u=79nDNHQG_gakS3Cbvi=JpO38ndjHy_fog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACGkMEvkTJn7Hm5u=79nDNHQG_gakS3Cbvi=JpO38ndjHy_fog@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Yongji Xie <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Dec 2022 13:04:43 +0800
Message-ID: <CACycT3tyR0zTfTgE3BhL0GZqWAj2KDC0Q+tfm+rV=wbgHPOhFA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] vduse: Introduce bound workqueue for irq injection
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:02 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 4:44 PM Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com> wrote:
> >
> > This introduces a bound workqueue to support running
> > irq callback in a specified cpu.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > index 37809bfcb7ef..d126f3e32a20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_user/vduse_dev.c
> > @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ struct vduse_virtqueue {
> >         struct vdpa_callback cb;
> >         struct work_struct inject;
> >         struct work_struct kick;
> > +       int irq_effective_cpu;
>
> I wonder why it's a cpu number instead of a cpumask. The latter seems
> more flexible, e.g when using NUMA.
>

This variable represents the CPU that runs the interrupt callback
rather than CPU affinity.

> >  };
> >
> >  struct vduse_dev;
> > @@ -128,6 +129,7 @@ static struct class *vduse_class;
> >  static struct cdev vduse_ctrl_cdev;
> >  static struct cdev vduse_cdev;
> >  static struct workqueue_struct *vduse_irq_wq;
> > +static struct workqueue_struct *vduse_irq_bound_wq;
> >
> >  static u32 allowed_device_id[] = {
> >         VIRTIO_ID_BLOCK,
> > @@ -917,7 +919,8 @@ static void vduse_vq_irq_inject(struct work_struct *work)
> >  }
> >
> >  static int vduse_dev_queue_irq_work(struct vduse_dev *dev,
> > -                                   struct work_struct *irq_work)
> > +                                   struct work_struct *irq_work,
> > +                                   int irq_effective_cpu)
> >  {
> >         int ret = -EINVAL;
> >
> > @@ -926,7 +929,11 @@ static int vduse_dev_queue_irq_work(struct vduse_dev *dev,
> >                 goto unlock;
> >
> >         ret = 0;
> > -       queue_work(vduse_irq_wq, irq_work);
> > +       if (irq_effective_cpu == -1)
>
> Is it better to have a macro for this magic number?
>

It makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Yongji