[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:0.021 / U:53.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site