[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IRQ affinity vs. MTRRs, was Re: 36 bit MTRRs, Re: test10-pre1 problems on 4-way SuperServer8050
On Thu, Oct 12, 2000 at 12:12:19PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> I came up with an idea. The MTRRs are per-cpu things.
> Ingo Molnar's IRQ affinity code helps binding certain
> IRQ sources to certain CPUs.
> What if the MTRR driver allows per-CPU settings, maybe only on
> uncached areas? Of course the real memory should be cached in
> every CPU to avoid slowdowns. So that if you set that eth0's
> IRQ will be handled by CPU1, the MTRRs of CPU1 will be set
> accordingly, and the other CPUs will not care about eth0,
> so they do not need eth0's MTRR settings.

A little question. Why do we want to bind irq of eth0 to a single CPU ?
imho it will casue slowdown of some situation. Why don't we leave scheduler
to select CPU for processing IRQ ?

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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:39    [W:0.073 / U:2.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site