From: "Kamble, Nitin A" <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
To: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <kai.bankett@ontika.net>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <akpm@diago.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
"Mallick, Asit K" <asit.k.mallick@intel.com>,
"Saxena, Sunil" <sunil.saxena@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][IO_APIC] 2.5.63bk7 irq_balance improvments / bug-fixes
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:33:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E88224AA79D2744187E7854CA8D9131DA8B7DE@fmsmsx407.fm.intel.com> (raw)
Hi Andrew, Kai,
The bouncing is seen because of the round robin IRQ distribution in
some
particular cases. In some cases, (such as single heavy interrupt source
in
a 2way SMP system) binding heavy interrupt sources to different cpus is
not
going to remove the complete imbalance. In that case we fall back to
Ingo's
round robin approach. We have studied the previous round robin interrupt
distribution implemented in the kernel, and we found that, at very high
interrupt rate, the performance of the system increased with the
increasing
period of the round robin distribution. Please see the original LKML
posting
for more details.
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0212.2/1122.html
So when if there is significant imbalance left after binding the IRQs to
cpus,
there are two options now,
1. Do not move around. Let the significant imbalance stick on a
particular
cpu.
2. Or move the heavy imbalance around all the cpus in the round robin
fashion at high rate.
Also we can have either of the option configurable in the kernel.
Both the solutions will eliminate the bouncing behavior. The current
implementation is based on the option 2, with the only difference of
lower rate of distribution (5 sec). The optimal option is workload
dependant. With static and heavy interrupt load, the option 2 looks
better, while with random interrupt load the option 1 is good enough.
Thanks & Regards,
Nitin
next reply other threads:[~2003-03-04 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-04 23:33 Kamble, Nitin A [this message]
2003-03-04 23:51 ` [PATCH][IO_APIC] 2.5.63bk7 irq_balance improvments / bug-fixes Andrew Morton
2003-03-05 10:48 ` Kai Bankett
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-06 20:01 Nakajima, Jun
2003-03-05 19:57 Kamble, Nitin A
2003-03-05 4:21 Kamble, Nitin A
2003-03-05 4:38 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-03-05 15:46 ` Jason Lunz
2003-03-05 18:26 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-03-04 16:33 Kai Bankett
2003-03-04 16:45 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E88224AA79D2744187E7854CA8D9131DA8B7DE@fmsmsx407.fm.intel.com \
--to=nitin.a.kamble@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@diago.com \
--cc=asit.k.mallick@intel.com \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kai.bankett@ontika.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sunil.saxena@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).