Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 May 2004 13:40:15 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64? |
| |
Nakajima, Jun wrote: > 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.
With all due respect, "it might be an embedded box" is not normally a reason why we keep stuff in the kernel. With initramfs et. al., we are actively moving in the opposite direction.
If this was the only reason for having kirqd in the kernel, it would be long gone.
The reason why kirqd hasn't been removed is simply because nobody has stepped up to do a apples-to-apples comparison to prove that userland irqbalanced has any performance advantages, or disadvantages, over kirqd. From a hard-numbers perspective, compared to kirqd, the userland solution is still largely an unknown quantity.
irqbalanced makes a lot of sense from a flexibility and policy perspective, and it works on multiple arches, so it has a lot more going for it.
"We like it in the kernel so we don't have to ship a userland component" is not a valid reason.
Jeff
- 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/
| |