![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:03:50PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Does anyone have a patch to tear it out already? Is the current proc > > interface acceptable, or do we want a syscall interface like wli > > suggests? > > I have no problems with the proc interface; it's ascii so reasonably > extendible in the future for, say, when 64 cpus on > 32 bit linux get supported. It's also not THAT inefficient since my code > only uses it when some binding changes, not all the time. Concerns have been expressed that the /proc interface may be a bit racy. One thing we do need to do is to write a /proc stresstest tool which pokes numbers into the /proc files at high rates, run that under traffic for a few hours. There is no need to pull out the existing balancer until the userspace solution is proven - it can be turned off with `noirqbalance' until that work has been performed. Nobody has tried improving the current balancer. From a quick look it appears that it could work reasonably for the problematic packet-forwarding workload if the when-to-start-balancing threshold is reduced from 1000/sec to (say) 10/sec. Don't know - I've never seen a description of how the algorithm should be improved. - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||