lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] NUMA-Q disable irqbalance
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
>>Was that before or after you changed HZ to 1000? I *think* that increased
>>the frequency of IO-APIC reprogramming by a factor of 10, though I might
>>be misreading the code. If it does depend on HZ, I think that's bad.
>
> The 1000Hz thing came much later, and I never noticed any impact of that
> on my machines.
>
> (Note that this is all entrely subjective. I was very disappointed in the
> feel of the first HT P4 machine I had for the first few weeks, but apart
> from running lmbench - which looked ok even though it shows that P4's are
> bad at system calls - I've not actually put numbers on it. But my feeling
> was that the irq thing made a noticeable difference. Caveat emptor -
> subjective feelings are not good).
>
>>People in our benchmarking group (Andrew, cc'ed) have told me that
>>reducing the frequency of IO-APIC reprogramming by a factor of 20 or
>>so improves performance greatly - don't know what HZ that was at, but
>>the whole thing seems a little overenthusiastic to me.
>
> The rebalancing was certainly done with a 100Hz clock, so yes, it might
> have become much worse lately.

Here's a patch from Andrea's tree that uses IRQ_BALANCE_INTERVAL to
define how often interrupts are balanced, staying independent from HZ.
It also makes sure that there _is_ a change to the configuration
before it actually writes it. It reminds me of the mod_timer
optimization.

While observing the affect that this has on /proc/interrupts, I
noticed that timer interrupts aren't very balanced across my 8 CPUs.

stock 2.5.30 kernel:
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4 CPU5 CPU6 CPU7
0:213935 63894 32373 1322 1900 1779 2895 181441 timer

2.5.31 w/attached patch
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4 CPU5 CPU6 CPU7
0: 19322 8778 35805 36771 9219 14091 1091741 1092294 timer

So, my patch didn't cause this situation. I don't know if it is
normal, but the other irq's were much more balanced than the timer one.
--
Dave Hansen
haveblue@us.ibm.com
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet 1.489 -> 1.490
# arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c 1.26 -> 1.27
#
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------
# 02/08/19 haveblue@elm3b96.(none) 1.490
# Reduce irqbalance's dependence on HZ. Only write to io_apic when there is actually
# a change to write into it.
# --------------------------------------------
#
diff -Nru a/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c b/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c Mon Aug 19 14:49:03 2002
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c Mon Aug 19 14:49:03 2002
@@ -220,6 +220,9 @@
((1 << cpu) & (allowed_mask))

#if CONFIG_SMP
+
+#define IRQ_BALANCE_INTERVAL (HZ/50)
+
static unsigned long move(int curr_cpu, unsigned long allowed_mask, unsigned long now, int direction)
{
int search_idle = 1;
@@ -254,8 +257,9 @@
if (clustered_apic_mode)
return;

- if (entry->timestamp != now) {
+ if (unlikely(time_after(now, entry->timestamp + IRQ_BALANCE_INTERVAL))) {
unsigned long allowed_mask;
+ unsigned int new_cpu;
int random_number;

rdtscl(random_number);
@@ -263,8 +267,11 @@

allowed_mask = cpu_online_map & irq_affinity[irq];
entry->timestamp = now;
- entry->cpu = move(entry->cpu, allowed_mask, now, random_number);
- set_ioapic_affinity(irq, 1 << entry->cpu);
+ new_cpu = move(entry->cpu, allowed_mask, now, random_number);
+ if (entry->cpu != new_cpu) {
+ entry->cpu = new_cpu;
+ set_ioapic_affinity(irq, 1 << new_cpu);
+ }
}
}
#else /* !SMP */
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.109 / U:1.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site