Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 01:34:46 +0200
From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Cc: davem@redhat.com, davidsen@tmr.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com,
       habanero@us.ibm.com, mbligh@aracnet.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: userspace irq balancer
Message-ID: <20030526233446.GZ3767@dualathlon.random>
References: <60830000.1053575867@[10.10.2.4]> <Pine.LNX.3.96.1030522130544.19863B-100000@gatekeeper.tmr.com> <20030522.154410.104047403.davem@redhat.com> <20030526222406.GU3767@dualathlon.random> <20030526162616.6ceacaba.akpm@digeo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030526162616.6ceacaba.akpm@digeo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 849
Lines: 23

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 04:26:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> >  	if (IRQ_ALLOWED(phys_id, allowed_mask) && idle_cpu(phys_id))
> >  		return cpu;
> 
> How hard would it be to make this HT-aware?
> 
> 	idle_cpu(phys_id) && idle_cpu_siblings(phys_id)
> 
> or whatever.

yeah! that was the obvious next step. as fast path the additional && is
sure good. Maybe that's enough after all, and we might search only for
fully idle cpus, however I wouldn't dislike to search for a fallback
(partially) logical idle cpu if none physical cpu is (fully) idle.

Andrea
-
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/