Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265746AbUAKDjU (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:39:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265751AbUAKDjT (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:39:19 -0500 Received: from mail-08.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.40]:64392 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265746AbUAKDjS (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:39:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4000C544.1040301@cyberone.com.au> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 14:38:44 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ed Tomlinson CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ethan Weinstein Subject: Re: 2.6.1 and irq balancing References: <40008745.4070109@stinkfoot.org> <200401102139.09883.edt@aei.ca> In-Reply-To: <200401102139.09883.edt@aei.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 803 Lines: 30 Ed Tomlinson wrote: >Hi, > >What is the load on the box when this is happening? If its low think >this is optimal (for cache reasons). > > I'd rather see different interrupt sources run on different CPUs initially, which would help fairness a little bit, and should be more optimal with big interrupt loads. 0: xxx1 0 0 0 1: 0 xxx2 0 0 2: 0 0 xxx3 0 3: 0 0 0 xxx4 This would delay the need for interrupt balancing in the case where 2 or more interrupts are heavily used. - 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/