Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64? | Date | Fri, 28 May 2004 10:09:31 -0700 | From | "Nakajima, Jun" <> |
| |
>From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel- >owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Chris Wedgwood >Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:38 PM >To: Arjan van de Ven; Anton Blanchard >Cc: Thomas Zehetbauer; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org' >Subject: Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64? > >On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 06:50:25PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> irqbalanced has NOT been obsoleted by CONFIG_IRQBALANCE. > >On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:03:34AM +1000, Anton Blanchard wrote: > >> > Seems to work, just like the i386 irqbalanced before it has been >> > obsoleted by CONFIG_IRQBALANCE >> >> No, CONFIG_IRQBALANCE is an x86 specific hack. > The issue is a xAPIC thing, and the both kernel-level and user-level are applicable to x86_64 as well.
The kernel does the default IRQ balancing, without assuming a user-level irq balancing (because it's a distribution issue). If the user-level has better knowledge, it just does a write to /proc/irq/N/smp_affinity to bind that IRQ to a particular CPU, as Arjan's program is doing. In other words, the kernel-level does _not_ move the ones bound by the user-level.
> > >Why do we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE at all then? > Today Linux is used for various configurations, including the ones that substantially limit the set of user commands, libraries, etc. So we want to keep it.
Jun
> > > --cw >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |