Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263702AbUAMGuU (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:50:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263726AbUAMGuU (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:50:20 -0500 Received: from stinkfoot.org ([65.75.25.34]:20923 "EHLO stinkfoot.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263702AbUAMGuN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:50:13 -0500 Message-ID: <40039529.2040709@stinkfoot.org> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 01:50:17 -0500 From: Ethan Weinstein User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20031224 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Nakajima, Jun" Cc: Ed Tomlinson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, piggin@cyberone.com.au, "Kamble, Nitin A" Subject: Re: 2.6.1 and irq balancing References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173618820@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D37200173618820@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2972 Lines: 69 Nakajima, Jun wrote: >> Admittedly, the machine's load was not high when I took this sample. >> However, creating a great deal of load does not change these statistics >> at all. Being that there are patches available for 2.4.x kernels to >> fix this, I don't think this at all by design, but what do I know? =) >> > 2.6 kernels don't need a patch to it as far as I understand. Are you > saying that with significant amount of load, you did not see any > distribution of interrupts? Today's threshold in the kernel is high > because we found moving around interrupts frequently rather hurt the > cache and thus lower the performance compared to "do nothing". Can you > try to create significant load with your network (eth0 and eh1) and see > what happens? > > Jun Here's the situation two days later, I created some brief periods of high load on eth1 and I see we have some change: CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 0: 184932542 0 2592511 0 IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 1875 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge i8042 2: 0 0 0 0 XT-PIC cascade 3: 3046103 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge serial 8: 2 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 14: 76 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge ide0 16: 2978264 0 0 0 IO-APIC-level sym53c8xx 22: 7838940 0 0 0 IO-APIC-level eth0 48: 916078 0 125150 0 IO-APIC-level aic79xx 49: 1099375 0 0 0 IO-APIC-level aic79xx 54: 51484241 316 50560879 279 IO-APIC-level eth1 NMI: 0 0 0 0 LOC: 187530735 187530988 187530981 187530986 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 My argument is (see below). This is an old 2x pentium2 @400, also running 2.6, an old Compaq Proliant to be exact. This machine obviously has no HT, so why the balanced load? CPU0 CPU1 0: 1066522197 1117196193 IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 42 19 IO-APIC-edge i8042 2: 0 0 XT-PIC cascade 5: 23523428 23510845 IO-APIC-level TLAN 8: 0 4 IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 15 15 IO-APIC-level sym53c8xx 10: 6874323 6809042 IO-APIC-level sym53c8xx 11: 7545802 7509034 IO-APIC-level ida0 14: 8 2 IO-APIC-edge ide0 NMI: 0 0 LOC: 2183867261 2183867237 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 Ethan - 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/