[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: irqbalance mandatory on SMP kernels?

    > Which brings up an interesting question --- why do we have an IRQ
    > balancer in the kernel at all?

    good question; at least RHEL disables it and uses the userspace one
    (which only decides to change the balance at most every 10 seconds, but
    has a strong tendency to leave the irqs as they are)

    > but spreading IRQ's across all of the CPU's doesn't seem like it's
    > ever the right answer.

    well it is in some cases, imagine having 2 cpus and 2 gige nics that are
    very busy doing webserving. That's an obvious case where 1-nic-per-cpu
    ends up doing the right thing... the way it ends up is that each nic has
    a full cpu for itself and it's own apaches... almost fully independent
    of the other one. Now if you moved both irqs to the same cpu, the
    apaches would follow, because if they didn't then you'd be bouncing
    their data *all the time*. And at that point the other cpu will become
    bored ;)

    This is what the userspace irqbalance has in its policy more or less:
    spread the irqs within the same class to different processors. And as
    secondary policy it tries to spread it out a bit, but that's only

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-04-18 20:23    [W:0.040 / U:0.236 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site