Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [IRQ] IRQ affinity not working properly? | Date | Thu, 22 Apr 2021 17:42:10 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, Apr 21 2021 at 09:31, Nitesh Narayan Lal wrote: > On 3/28/21 2:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 29 2021 at 13:17, Chris Friesen wrote: >>> I have a CentOS 7 linux system with 48 logical CPUs and a number of > > <snip> > >>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-net1-TxRx-3 >>> 961: 0 0 0 0 28492 0 >>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-0000:b5:02.7:mbx >>> 962: 0 0 0 0 435608 0 >>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-net1-TxRx-0 >>> 963: 0 0 0 0 394832 0 >>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-net1-TxRx-1 >>> 964: 0 0 0 0 398414 0 >>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-net1-TxRx-2 >>> 965: 0 0 0 0 192847 0 >>> IR-PCI-MSI-edge iavf-net1-TxRx-3 >>> >>> There were IRQs coming in on the "iavf-0000:b5:02.7:mbx" interrupt at >>> roughly 1 per second without any traffic, while the interrupt rate on >>> the "iavf-net1-TxRx-<X>" seemed to be related to traffic. >>> >>> Is this expected? It seems like the IRQ subsystem is not respecting the >>> configured SMP affinity for the interrupt in question. I've also seen >>> the same behaviour with igb interrupts. >> No it's not expected. Do you see the same behaviour with a recent >> mainline kernel, i.e. 5.10 or 5.11? >> >> > Jesse pointed me to this thread and apologies that it took a while for me > to respond here. > > I agree it will be interesting to see with which kernel version Chris is > reproducing the issue.
And the output of
/proc/irq/$NUMBER/smp_affinity_list /proc/irq/$NUMBER/effective_affinity_list
> Initially, I thought that this issue is the same as the one that we have > been discussing in another thread [1]. > > However, in that case, the smp affinity mask itself is incorrect and doesn't > follow the default smp affinity mask (with irqbalance disabled).
That's the question...
Thanks,
tglx
| |