[lkml]   [2003]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: userspace irq balancer
    On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:25:31PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
    > The in-kernel stuff MUST go. It went in because "some benchmark went
    > faster", but with no "why" describing why it might have improved
    > performance. We KNOW it absolutely sucks for routing and firewall
    > applications. The in-kernel bits were all a shamans dance, with zero
    > technical "here is why this makes things go faster" description
    > attached. If I remember properly, the changelog message when the
    > in-kernel irq balancing went in was of the form "this makes some
    > specweb run go faster".

    Absolutely. Not to mention the code for the in-kernel algorithm has
    historically broken i386 ports using certain modes of Intel's
    interrupt controllers.

    Far better would be to validate that the affinity specified is feasible
    to program into the interrupt controller in a system call and leave the
    algorithm to userspace.

    -- wli
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [W:0.021 / U:22.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site