Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176002-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 10:20:02 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	ming.lei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme-pci: allow unmanaged interrupts
Message-ID: <Zj5JMqWRY187PqnD@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20240510141459.3207725-1-kbusch@meta.com>
 <20240510141459.3207725-2-kbusch@meta.com>
 <20240510151047.GA10486@lst.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240510151047.GA10486@lst.de>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 05:10:47PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 07:14:59AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Some people _really_ want to control their interrupt affinity.
> 
> So let them argue why.  I'd rather have a really, really, really
> good argument for this crap, and I'd like to hear it from the horses
> mouth.

It's just prioritizing predictable user task scheduling for a subset of
CPUs instead of having consistently better storage performance.

We already have "isolcpus=managed_irq," parameter to prevent managed
interrupts from running on a subset of CPUs, so the use case is already
kind of supported. The problem with that parameter is it is a no-op if
the starting affinity spread contains only isolated CPUs.