[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
>From: Arjan van de Ven []
>Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:57 AM
>To: Martin J. Bligh
>Cc: Jeff Garzik; Nakajima, Jun; Andrew Morton; Anton Blanchard; linux-
>Subject: Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64?
>On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:46:18AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> Personally, I find the argument that it's hardware-specific control
>> a much better reason for it to belong in the kernel.
>Is it really hardware specific ??

I think automatic IRQ binding business should belong to the user-level;
it can use generic statistics, application, or platform configuration

The kernel-level should have some simple chipset model, such as lowest
priority delivery mode with finer granularity of control. The kirqd at
this point, is doing automatic IRQ binding business as well today,
although it does not literally bind them. So I think we need to remove
that part of code from kirqd.


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

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.064 / U:0.480 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site