[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: IRQ balancing on a router
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
: Jan Kasprzak <> wrote:
: > The result is
: > that the CPU which receives IRQs for the uplink interface
: > is 100 % busy (softirq mostly), while the other one is 90% idle.
: one of the hard cases for irqbalance is that irqbalance doesn't have a
: way to find out the actual cpu time spend in the handlers. For
: networking it makes an estimate just based on the number of packets
: (which is better than nothing)... but that breaks down if you have an
: non-symmetry in CPU costs per packet like you have.
: The good news is that irqthreads at least have the potential to solve
: this "lack of information"; if not, we could consider doing a form of
: microaccounting for irq handlers....

I am not sure whether this would help. In my case, the most of the
in-kernel CPU time is not spend in the irq handler per se, but in softirq
(i.e. checking the packet against iptables rules).


| Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas at { - work | - private}> |
| GPG: ID 1024/D3498839 Fingerprint 0D99A7FB206605D7 8B35FCDE05B18A5E |
| Journal: |
>> If you find yourself arguing with Alan Cox, you’re _probably_ wrong. <<
>> --James Morris in "How and Why You Should Become a Kernel Hacker" <<
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: 2008-10-03 17:01    [W:0.066 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site