lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps
Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
>> Bodo Eggert wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>>>> Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to
>>>> be
>>>> able to be turned-off without turning the code. That leaves me in
>>>> agreement
>>>> with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be
>>>> preferable.
>>>> It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice.
>>>
>>> I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of
>>> intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple
>>> daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's
>>> kernel stack, why not?
>> Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have
>> repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where
>> my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am
>> not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing.
>>
>> That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on
>> a running system without having to roll bits or reboot.
>
> Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it?

Except the irq balancing is system-wide. Adding per-device exemptions to an
obsolete feature seems like the wrong way to go.

-- Chris


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-21 23:35    [W:0.069 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site