lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 20 Oct 2004 13:50:13 -0400
FromTimothy Miller <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option


Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> it is not intended for servers, due to the overhead of redirection. It's
> for realtime workloads and for latency-sensitive audio desktop
> workloads. For servers and normal desktops the current IRQ and softirq
> model is pretty OK.
>


I commented previously about the preemption allowing the kernel to keep
more resources busy. So if you have 6 disk controllers and 4 NICs, the
preemption can allow the kernel to keep more of them busier at the same
time, while without preemption, one resource might get starved while
non-preemptable code is servicing another.

This makes the overhead very much worth it.

Are there test results which demonstrate that this theory doesn't apply
practically to real-world server loads?

I would expect a very busy server to be helped by this in a noticable
way, but then I am often short-sighted. :)

-
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 14:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2010