Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:33:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:33:16 -0500 Received: from modemcable017.51-203-24.mtl.mc.videotron.ca ([24.203.51.17]:12464 "EHLO montezuma.mastecende.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:33:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:43:14 -0500 (EST) From: Zwane Mwaikambo X-X-Sender: zwane@montezuma.mastecende.com To: Steffen Persvold cc: Emiliano Gabrielli , "" , Manish Lachwani , "" Subject: Re: i7500 and IRQ assignment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 635 Lines: 17 On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Steffen Persvold wrote: > 2.4.20-rc2 or -rc3 work fine on my E7500 boards. I've appiled the > irqbalance patch from Ingo Molnar though. It gives me better interrupt > latency compared to the APIC routing patch (with GbE it is ~10us faster on > ping-pong/2 tests). How does IRQ affinity fair with respect to your interrupt latencies? Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca - 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/