Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:50:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:50:31 -0400 Received: from chiara.elte.hu ([157.181.150.200]:64772 "HELO chiara.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:50:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:50:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar To: Tim Hockin Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox , Alexey Kuznetsov , Andrea Arcangeli , Simon Kirby Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: <200110012226.f91MQQe02638@www.hockin.org> Message-ID: 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 On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Tim Hockin wrote: > Our solution/needs are slightly different - we want to service as many > interrupts as possible and do as much network traffic as possible, and > interactive-tasks be damned. i the patch in fact enables this too: you can more agressively get irqs and softirqs executed by increasing max_rate just above the 'critical' rate you can measure. (and the blocked-interrupts period of time will be enough to let the softirq work to be finished.) So in fact you might even end up having higher performance by blocking interrupts in a certain portion of a timer tick - backlogged work will be processed. Via max_rate you can partition the percentage of CPU time dedicated to softirq and process work. (which in your case would be softirq-only work - which should not be underestimated either.) Ingo - 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/