Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755120AbZGELAh (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 07:00:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752817AbZGELA3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 07:00:29 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f211.google.com ([209.85.219.211]:49833 "EHLO mail-ew0-f211.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752644AbZGELA3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 07:00:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ZV3Yyc4nkbutCfN6kgzqG8miZ/IZhcOpoTKVYPMzVJzsruRw7PdJzs1X5C1DxTB8Jf VeCLXvPNxaXofuQ8FNASg35KEHmqYqK2ecPlLBGMe3s0X6VOpSZTWGDLnb8i5F8CIYcN 6jW1oE0AaQ1QsTr+Fy3zBNWMlBGsp4jKAeQWY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 12:00:31 +0100 Message-ID: <6278d2220907050400k1359df3av4045d3bba07d2be7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: >10% performance degradation since 2.6.18 From: Daniel J Blueman To: Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen Cc: Linux Kernel , Jens Axboe , Arjan van de Ven Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1679 Lines: 40 On Jul 3, 9:10 pm, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:54:58 +0200 > > Andi Kleen wrote: > > > That would seem to be a fruitful avenue of > > > investigation -- whether limiting the cards to a single RX/TX > > > interrupt would be advantageous, or whether spreading the eight > > > interrupts out over the CPUs would be advantageous. > > > The kernel should really do the per cpu binding of MSIs by default. > > ... so that you can't do power management on a per socket basis? > hardly a good idea. > > just need to use a new enough irqbalance and it will spread out the > interrupts unless your load is low enough to go into low power mode. I was finding newer kernels (>~2.6.24) would set the Redirection Hint bit in the MSI address vector, allowing the processors to deliver the interrupt to the lowest interrupt priority (eg idle, no powersave) core (http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/manual/253668.pdf pp10-66) and older irqbalance daemons would periodically naively rewrite the bitmask of cores, delivering the interrupt to a static one. Thus, it may be worth checking if disabling any older irqbalance daemon gives any win. Perhaps there is value in writing different subsets of cores to the MSI address vector core bitmask (with the redirection hint enabled) for different I/O queues on heavy interrupt sources? By default, it's all cores. Daniel -- Daniel J Blueman -- 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/