Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:49:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:49:46 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:30470 "EHLO deathstar.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:49:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:50:02 -0400 Message-Id: <200110040350.f943o2d08615@deathstar.prodigy.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [announce] [patch] limiting IRQ load, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-B5 X-Newsgroups: linux.dev.kernel In-Reply-To: Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article mingo@elte.hu wrote: >there are *tons* of disadvantages if IRQs are shared. In any >high-performance environment, not having enough interrupt sources is a >sizing or hw design mistake. You can have up to 200 interrupts even on a >PC, using multipe IO-APICs. Any decent server board distributes interrupt >sources properly. Shared interrupts are a legacy of the PC design, and we >are moving away from it slowly but surely. Especially under gigabit loads >there are several PCI busses anyway, so getting non-shared interrupts is >not only easy but a necessity as well. There is no law in physics that >somehow mandates or prefers the sharing of interrupt vectors: devices are >distinct, they use up distinct slots in the board. The PCI bus can get >multiple IRQ sources out of a single card, so even multi-controller cards >are covered. Sharing irq between unrelated devices is probably evil in all cases, but for identical devices like multiple NICs, the shared irq results in *one* irq call, followed by polling the devices connected, which can be lower overhead than servicing N interrupts on a multi-NIC system. Shared interrupts predate the PC by a decade (or more), so the comment about the "PC design" is not relevant. In general polling multiple devices is less CPU than servicing the same i/o by a larger number of entries to the interrupt handler. The polling offers the possibility of lower the number of context switches, far more expensive than checking a device. In serial and network devices the poll is often unavoidable, unless you use one irq for send and one for receive you will be doing a bit of polling in any case. -- bill davidsen "If I were a diplomat, in the best case I'd go hungry. In the worst case, people would die." -- Robert Lipe - 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/