Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-177561-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <ce50c633-598e-4252-88fd-109954808b2b@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 14:33:14 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: benjamin.meier70@gmail.com, hch@lst.de, kbusch@kernel.org,
 kbusch@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de
References: <ZkHcde1xeBOiEikg@fedora>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvme-pci: allow unmanaged interrupts
Content-Language: en-US
From: Benjamin Meier <benjamin.meier70@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZkHcde1xeBOiEikg@fedora>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 > 'isolcpus=managed_irq' enablement patches are small, and shouldn't be 
very
 > hard to backport.

I have big respect of kernel code and probably for non-kernel devs it's 
not so easy:)

But yeah, we'll look into this.

 > > > > be tricky to assign all interrupts to those without a
 > > performance-penalty.
 > > > >
 > > > > Given these requirements, manually specifying interrupt/core 
assignments
 > > > > would offer greater flexibility and control over system 
performance.
 > > > > Moreover, the proposed code changes appear minimal and have no
 > > > > impact on existing functionalities.
 > > >
 > > > Looks your main concern is performance, but as Keith mentioned, the
 > > proposed
 > > > change may degrade nvme perf too:
 > > >
 > > > 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/Zj6745UDnwX1BteO@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com/
 > >
 > > Yes, but for NVMe it's not that critical. The most important point 
for us is
 > > to keep them away from our "high-priority" cores. We still wanted 
to have
 > > control
 > > where we run those interrupts, but also because we just did not 
know the
 > > "managed_irq"
 > > option.
 >
 > OK, thanks for share the input!
 >
 > Now from upstream viewpoint, 'isolcpus=managed_irq' should work for 
your case,
 > and seems not necessary to support nvme unmanaged irq for this 
requirement
 > at least.

Yes, probably that will do it. Personally, I still think it's a nice 
thing if it's
possible to assign interrupts to specific cores, but practically the 
advantages are
likely not that big compared to 'isolcpus=managed_irq'.

Thanks for all the explanations