Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 May 2003 22:53:11 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: userspace irq balancer |
| |
--Dave Hansen <haveblue@us.ibm.com> wrote (on Monday, May 19, 2003 22:03:50 -0700):
> On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 20:46, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:25:31PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: >> > The in-kernel stuff MUST go. It went in because "some benchmark went >> > faster", but with no "why" describing why it might have improved >> > performance. We KNOW it absolutely sucks for routing and firewall >> > applications. The in-kernel bits were all a shamans dance, with zero >> > technical "here is why this makes things go faster" description >> > attached. If I remember properly, the changelog message when the >> > in-kernel irq balancing went in was of the form "this makes some >> > specweb run go faster". >> >> Absolutely. Not to mention the code for the in-kernel algorithm has >> historically broken i386 ports using certain modes of Intel's >> interrupt controllers. > > OK, I just went and actually looked at the code again. After > suppressing my gag reflex, I started to remember all of the problems > we've had with it, including fixing it for Intel's own clustered APIC > mode. > > Does anyone have a patch to tear it out already? Is the current proc > interface acceptable, or do we want a syscall interface like wli > suggests?
I have no frigging idea why you'd want to tear something out that works well already, and has a shitload of work put into it.
Make it a config option if you don't like it, Keith has a patch to do that already - it's trivial. That way everyone can have what they want.
M.
- 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/
| |