Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:11:17 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x |
| |
Joerg Sommrey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>>there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost >>>all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way >>>after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly >>>to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I expect when a >>>config option named IRQBALANCE is *disabled*. >>> >>>Can anybody comment on this? >> >>If you have a Pentium 3 based system, by default they'll round robin. >>If you turn on IRQbalance, they won't move until the traffic gets high >>enough load to matter. That's presumably what you're seeing. > > > It's an Athlon box that propably has the same behaviour. Just another > question on this topic: with IRQBALANCE enabled, almost all interupts > are routet to CPU0. Lately irq 0 runs on CPU1 and never returns to CPU0 > - is there any obvious reason for that?
Note that it is a popular recommendation to -disable- CONFIG_IRQBALANCE, and then run the userspace 'irqbalanced'.
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/
| |