From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266043AbUALEk5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:40:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266045AbUALEk5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:40:57 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:22279 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266043AbUALEk4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:40:56 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Bill Davidsen Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: 2.6.1 and irq balancing Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:42:27 -0500 Organization: TMR Associates, Inc Message-ID: References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173618820@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1073881725 3784 192.168.12.10 (12 Jan 2004 04:28:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173618820@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nakajima, Jun wrote: > 2.6 kernels don't need a patch to it as far as I understand. Are you > saying that with significant amount of load, you did not see any > distribution of interrupts? Today's threshold in the kernel is high > because we found moving around interrupts frequently rather hurt the > cache and thus lower the performance compared to "do nothing". Can you > try to create significant load with your network (eth0 and eh1) and see > what happens? How much is significant? The term doesn't really help much. I will say that with one NIC taking 120MB/sec of data to a TB database and copying to two other machine (~220MB) my interrupts got up in in the 5k-12k range with essentially CPU0 doing the work, some few percent going to CPU2. I'm not sure this is a problem in any way, but some serious load is needed to trigger sharing, if indeed the NIC was the source of the ints on CPU2. 2x Xeon-2.4GHz, HT enabled. "CPU2" from memory, it was the other physical CPU, not another sibling. Worked fine, didn't break, don't regard it as a problem. -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979