Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0400 | From | Chris Snook <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |