Re: IRQ affinity problem from virtio_blk

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, Nov 16 2022 at 19:35, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:43:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > Let's say we have 20 queues - then just 10 devices will exhaust the
>> > vector space right?
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> If you have 20 queues then the queues are spread out over the
>> CPUs. Assume 80 CPUs:
>> 
>> Then each queue is associated to 80/20 = 4 CPUs and the resulting
>> affinity mask of each queue contains exactly 4 CPUs:
>> 
>> q0:      0 -  3
>> q1:      4 -  7
>> ...
>> q19:    76 - 79
>> 
>> So this puts exactly 80 vectors aside, one per CPU.
>> 
>> As long as at least one CPU of a queue mask is online the queue is
>> enabled. If the last CPU of a queue mask goes offline then the queue is
>> shutdown which means the interrupt associated to the queue is shut down
>> too. That's all handled by the block MQ and the interrupt core. If a CPU
>> of a queue mask comes back online then the guaranteed vector is
>> allocated again.
>> 
>> So it does not matter how many queues per device you have it will
>> reserve exactly ONE interrupt per CPU.
>> 
>> Ergo you need 200 devices to exhaust the vector space.
>
> I am wondering why one interrupt needs to be reserved for each CPU, in
> theory one queue needs one irq, I understand, so would you mind
> explaining the story a bit?

It's only one interrupt per queue. Interrupt != vector.

The guarantee of managed interrupts always was that if there are less
queues than CPUs that CPU hotunplug cannot result in vector exhaustion.

Therefore we differentiate between managed and non-managed
interrupts. Managed have a guaranteed reservation, non-managed do not.

That's been a very deliberate design decision from the very beginning.

Thanks,

        tglx