Messages in this thread | | | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.1 and irq balancing | Date | Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:42:27 -0500 |
| |
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> 2.6 kernels don't need a patch to it as far as I understand. Are you > saying that with significant amount of load, you did not see any > distribution of interrupts? Today's threshold in the kernel is high > because we found moving around interrupts frequently rather hurt the > cache and thus lower the performance compared to "do nothing". Can you > try to create significant load with your network (eth0 and eh1) and see > what happens?
How much is significant? The term doesn't really help much. I will say that with one NIC taking 120MB/sec of data to a TB database and copying to two other machine (~220MB) my interrupts got up in in the 5k-12k range with essentially CPU0 doing the work, some few percent going to CPU2.
I'm not sure this is a problem in any way, but some serious load is needed to trigger sharing, if indeed the NIC was the source of the ints on CPU2.
2x Xeon-2.4GHz, HT enabled. "CPU2" from memory, it was the other physical CPU, not another sibling. Worked fine, didn't break, don't regard it as a problem.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 - 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/
| |