Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:08:46 +0200 (CEST) | From | Bodo Eggert <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps |
| |
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote: > Bodo Eggert wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
> > > Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to > > > be > > > able to be turned-off without turning the code. That leaves me in > > > agreement > > > with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be > > > preferable. > > > It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice. > > > > > > I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of > > intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple > > daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's > > kernel stack, why not? > > Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have > repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where > my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am > not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing. > > That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on > a running system without having to roll bits or reboot.
Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it? -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 34. The network's down, but we're working on it. Come back after diner. (Usually said at 2200 the night before thesis deadline... )
| |