Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263268AbTESWKu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 18:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263270AbTESWKu (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 18:10:50 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:40884 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263268AbTESWKr (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 May 2003 18:10:47 -0400 Subject: Re: userspace irq balancer From: Dave Hansen To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Badari Pulavarty , lkml , Gerrit Huizenga , John Stultz , James Cleverdon , Andrew Morton , Keith Mannthey In-Reply-To: <20030519221111.P7061@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200305191314.06216.pbadari@us.ibm.com> <1053382055.5959.346.camel@nighthawk> <20030519221111.P7061@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1053382943.4827.358.camel@nighthawk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.4 Date: 19 May 2003 15:22:24 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1622 Lines: 37 On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 15:11, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 03:07:36PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > > > The only thing I'm concerned about is how it's going to be packaged. > > I'm envisioning explaining how to get the daemon out of its initrd > > image, set it up and run it, especially before distros have it > > integrated. The stuff that's in the kernel now isn't horribly broken; > > it's just not optimal for some relatively unusual cases. > > as for distros: RHL8 and later ship with it on the RH side > (default enabled as of RHL9). But, do you see the need for ripping out the current code? For those of us that are still running a slightly more primitive distro, it would be nice to have some pretty effective default behavior, like what is in the kernel now. > As for where to start it: I really think an initscript is the logical > place; there has been some discussion about doing it > from the initramfs but I don't see real benifit from that; from starting > init to running the initscripts isn't exactly THIS interrupt/performance > heavy. Yeah, I don't think we need it the second the kernel boots :) Do you really think this is a 2.6 showstopper? Since it will require distro cooperation anyway, and those are many months from releasing a 2.6 distro, do we really need it in place for 2.6.0? -- Dave Hansen haveblue@us.ibm.com - 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/