Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:50:13 -0400 | | From | Timothy Miller <> | | Subject | Re: [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/
|  |