Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176304-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 07:50:21 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>,
	linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme-pci: allow unmanaged interrupts
Message-ID: <Zj6yvTxIpUnOXl7R@fedora>
References: <20240510141459.3207725-1-kbusch@meta.com>
 <20240510141459.3207725-2-kbusch@meta.com>
 <20240510151047.GA10486@lst.de>
 <Zj5JMqWRY187PqnD@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zj5JMqWRY187PqnD@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:20:02AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> 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.

Can you explain a bit why it is a no-op? If only isolated CPUs are
spread on one queue, there will be no IO originated from these isolated
CPUs, that is exactly what the isolation needs.


Thanks,
Ming