Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:22:43 -0500 | From | Mark Lord <> | Subject | Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ? |
| |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote: > >> kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel >> source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...] > > would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced > automatically? I'd love it if we moved more of the 'system support' > userspace into the kernel proper, to keep it under control. (and to > simplify the compatibility and QA matrix) ..
Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so.
I *like* having a single boot image with no unneeded/unwanted complexity. It's only recently that I've even come round to using some loadable modules for things like network drivers -- I prefer a single image for as much as possible (like Linus there).
If putting a C-library and utilities "into the kernel" still leaves me with a single image file, then.. maybe. Seems clumsy, though.
Handling interrupts efficiently is a very basic, core function for any operating system kernel. With CONFIG_IRQBALANCE=y, Linux is fine at present. But that's not available in 64-bit mode, so we have a deficiency there.
I guess I'll patch it into my kernels soon-ish.
Cheers - 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/
| |