Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: irqbalance mandatory on SMP kernels? | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:45:36 +0200 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 04:23:14PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > as long as the irqs are spread the apaches will (on average) follow your > > irq to the right cpu. Only if you put both irqs on the same cpu you have > > an issue > > Maybe I'm being stupid but I don't see how the Apache's will follow > the IRQ's to the right CPU. I agree this would be a good thing to do, > but how does the scheduler accomplish this?
iirc this part of the kernel uses wake_up_sync() and such, which tend to pull the apache to the cpu (if it's idle) in the long term (or it ought to; at one point it did)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |