[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven <> wrote:
>> kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel
>> source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...]
> would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced
> automatically? I'd love it if we moved more of the 'system support'
> userspace into the kernel proper, to keep it under control. (and to
> simplify the compatibility and QA matrix)

Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel
should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd,
or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so.

I *like* having a single boot image with no unneeded/unwanted complexity.
It's only recently that I've even come round to using some loadable
modules for things like network drivers -- I prefer a single image
for as much as possible (like Linus there).

If putting a C-library and utilities "into the kernel" still leaves
me with a single image file, then.. maybe. Seems clumsy, though.

Handling interrupts efficiently is a very basic, core function
for any operating system kernel. With CONFIG_IRQBALANCE=y, Linux is
fine at present. But that's not available in 64-bit mode,
so we have a deficiency there.

I guess I'll patch it into my kernels soon-ish.

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: 2007-11-21 00:25    [W:0.080 / U:2.892 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site