Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754271AbXFXUyx (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:54:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751017AbXFXUyr (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:54:47 -0400 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:2887 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751340AbXFXUyq (ORCPT ); Sun, 24 Jun 2007 16:54:46 -0400 Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:54:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Justin Piszcz cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, Alan Piszcz Subject: Re: IRQ Balance Question for Single but Multi-Core Processors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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 Content-Length: 821 Lines: 24 On Jun 24 2007 16:29, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > Question regarding the IRQ balance daemon and the 2.6.x kernel. > > For a single-processor but dual or quad core CPU, should one be running the IRQ > balancing daemon, will it result in increased performance? > > Or is IRQ balance mainly targeted at physical multi-processor systems? There must be a reason it exists :) For MC or MP or MCMP systems, it should be helpful indeed. HT however, not so sure. But then again, MCHT and MCMPHT maybe. (multi-core, multi-processor, hyperthreading, and combinations thereof.) Jan -- - 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/