Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: userspace irq balancer | From | Dave Hansen <> | Date | 19 May 2003 22:03:50 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 20:46, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > 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.
OK, I just went and actually looked at the code again. After suppressing my gag reflex, I started to remember all of the problems we've had with it, including fixing it for Intel's own clustered APIC mode.
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?
-- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com
- 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/
| |