Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 May 2004 10:45:26 +0200 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64? |
| |
On Sat, May 29, 2004 at 06:41:46PM +1000, michael@optusnet.com.au wrote: > Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com> writes: > > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 11:33:32AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > [...] > > > Also, we may well have more than 1 CPU's worth of traffic to > > > process in a large network server. > > > > One NIC? I've yet to see that ;) > > Oh, and another corner case. > > Say you have a cpu-bound process on an SMP box. > Say you're also using a large chunk of a CPU processing > interrupts from a single IRQ. > > What stops the cpu-bound process being scheduled onto > the same CPU as the interrupt handlers? > > Now you've got one idle CPU, and one seriously overloaded > CPU.
yes and the only real answer here is to make the scheduler move the process. "balancing" the irq (say every other irq) will actually use BOTH cpus 100% (yes balancing is that expensive due to cache misses :)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |