From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262143AbTEUOpb (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 10:45:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262144AbTEUOpa (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 10:45:30 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:7135 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262143AbTEUOp2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 10:45:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 07:58:11 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: "David S. Miller" , habanero@us.ibm.com cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, wli@holomorphy.com, arjanv@redhat.com, pbadari@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gh@us.ibm.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com, jamesclv@us.ibm.com, akpm@digeo.com, mannthey@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: userspace irq balancer Message-ID: <6610000.1053529089@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <20030520.163833.104040023.davem@redhat.com> References: <1053412583.13289.322.camel@nighthawk><20030519.234055.35511478.davem@redhat.com><200305200907.41443.habanero@us.ibm.com> <20030520.163833.104040023.davem@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > There is zero reason why IRQ balancing should be in any way > different. It's POLICY, and POLICY == USERSPACE. It is the end > of the argument. Despite whatever political wrangling there is between userspace and kernelspace implementations (and some very valid points about other arches), there is still a dearth of testing, as far as I can see. I can't see anything wrong with making it a config option for now, and letting people choose what they want to do, until we have more information as to which performs better under a variety of workloads. That seems the most pragmatic way forward. M.