From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758161AbZKYPi4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757540AbZKYPiz (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:55 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:48645 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756091AbZKYPiy (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:38:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:40:33 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Dimitri Sivanich , Ingo Molnar , Suresh Siddha , Yinghai Lu , LKML , Jesse Barnes , David Miller , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] x86/apic: limit irq affinity Message-ID: <20091125074033.4c46c1b0@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20091120211139.GB19106@sgi.com> <20091122011457.GA16910@sgi.com> <1259069986.4531.1453.camel@laptop> <20091124065022.6933be1a@infradead.org> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.3 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i586-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:41:18 -0800 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > Oii. > > I don't think it is bad to export information to applications like > irqbalance. > > I think it pretty horrible that one of the standard ways I have heard > to improve performance on 10G nics is to kill irqbalance. irqbalance does not move networking irqs; if it does there's something evil going on in the system. But thanks for the bugreport ;) > Guys. Migrating an irq from one cpu to another while the device is > running without dropping interrupts is hard. no it isn't; we've been doing it for years. > I think the irq scheduler is the only scheduler (except for batch > jobs) that we don't put in the kernel. It seems to me that if we are > going to go to all of the trouble to rewrite the generic code to > better support irqbalance because we are having serious irqbalance > problems, it will be less effort to suck irqbalance into the kernel > along with everything else. we had that; it didn't work. what I'm asking for is for the kernel to expose the numa information; right now that is the piece that is missing. -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org