Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:25:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:25:39 -0400 Received: from chiara.elte.hu ([157.181.150.200]:265 "HELO chiara.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 14:25:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 20:23:39 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 In-Reply-To: <200110031811.f93IBoN10026@penguin.transmeta.com> 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, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Now test it again with the disk interrupt being shared with the > network card. > > Doesn't happen? It sure does. [...] yes, disk IRQs might be delayed in that case. Without this mechanizm there is a lockup. > Which is why I like the NAPI approach. If somebody overloads my > network card, my USB camera doesn't stop working. i agree that NAPI is a better approach. And IRQ overload does not happen on cards that have hardware-based irq mitigation support already. (and i should note that those cards will likely perform even faster with NAPI.) > I don't disagree with your patch as a last resort when all else fails, > but I _do_ disagree with it as a network load limiter. okay - i removed those parts already (kpolld) in today's patch. (It initially was an experiment to prove that this is the only problem we are facing under such loads.) 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/