Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:28:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:27:58 -0400 Received: from shell.cyberus.ca ([209.195.95.7]:42423 "EHLO shell.cyberus.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:27:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:25:32 -0400 (EDT) From: jamal To: Ingo Molnar cc: , Alexey Kuznetsov , Robert Olsson , Benjamin LaHaise , , Linus Torvalds , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: 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 Wed, 3 Oct 2001, jamal wrote: > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > but the objectives, judging from the description you gave, are i think > > largely orthogonal, with some overlapping in the polling part. > > yes. Weve done a lot of thoroughly thought work in that area and i think > it will be a sin to throw it out. > I hit the send button to fast.. The dynamic irq limiting (it must not be set by a system admin to conserve the principle of work) could be used as a last resort. The point is, if you are not generating a lot of interupts to begin with (as is the case with NAPI), i dont see the irq rate limiting kicking in at all. Maybe for broken drivers and perhaps for other devices other than those within the network subsystem (i think weve pretty much taken care of the network subsystem). But you must fix the irq sharing issue first and be able to precisely isolate and punish the rude devices. cheers, jamal - 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/