linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kamble, Nitin A" <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
To: "Kai Bankett" <chaosman@ontika.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <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: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:57:03 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E88224AA79D2744187E7854CA8D9131DA8B7E1@fmsmsx407.fm.intel.com> (raw)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kai Bankett [mailto:chaosman@ontika.net]
> Are you really sure that option 2 looks better on a static and heavy
> interrupt load ?
> If the load is generated by few heavy sources (sources_count <
> count(cpus)) why not distributed them (mostly) statically across the
> available cpus ? What gain do you have by rotating them round robin in
> this case ?
> I think round robin only starts making sense if the number of heavy
> sources is > number of physical cpus.

[NK] If there is no rotating around at all, then it is same as
statically binding the IRQs to cpus. And with the netstat benchmark the
kirq has performed about 10% better than nicely statically bound IRQs.
It is happening like that because, after processing the interrupt the
benchmark
also has to do some processing, and if all the threads are doing the
processing at almost equal speed it gives better performance. If one
thread is faster and another is slower, the slower guy slows down the
whole system.

Thanks,
Nitin
> 
> Kai

             reply	other threads:[~2003-03-05 19:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-03-05 19:57 Kamble, Nitin A [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-03-06 20:01 [PATCH][IO_APIC] 2.5.63bk7 irq_balance improvments / bug-fixes Nakajima, Jun
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 23:33 Kamble, Nitin A
2003-03-04 23:51 ` Andrew Morton
2003-03-05 10:48 ` Kai Bankett
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=E88224AA79D2744187E7854CA8D9131DA8B7E1@fmsmsx407.fm.intel.com \
    --to=nitin.a.kamble@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@diago.com \
    --cc=asit.k.mallick@intel.com \
    --cc=chaosman@ontika.net \
    --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).