lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.1 and irq balancing
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.062 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site