Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933883AbZKXSWN (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:22:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933798AbZKXSWL (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:22:11 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:41579 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933773AbZKXSWI (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:22:08 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:20:59 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Dimitri Sivanich , Suresh Siddha , Yinghai Lu , LKML , Jesse Barnes , David Miller , Peter P Waskiewicz Jr , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] x86/apic: limit irq affinity Message-ID: <20091124182059.GB11894@elte.hu> References: <20091120211139.GB19106@sgi.com> <20091122011457.GA16910@sgi.com> <1259069986.4531.1453.camel@laptop> <20091124065022.6933be1a@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=none autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 _SUMMARY_ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1313 Lines: 30 * Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Currently the irq code treats /proc/irq/N/smp_affinity as a strong > hint on where we would like interrupts to be delivered, and we don't > have good feedback from there to architecture specific code that knows > what we really can do. It is going to take some effort and some work > to make that happen. > > I think the irq scheduler is the only scheduler (except for batch > jobs) that we don't put in the kernel. It seems to me that if we are > going to go to all of the trouble to rewrite the generic code to > better support irqbalance because we are having serious irqbalance > problems, it will be less effort to suck irqbalance into the kernel > along with everything else. > > I really think irqbalancing belongs in the kernel. [...] Interesting. I've yet to see a solution that is maintainable and works well, without putting too much policy into the kernel. Our previous solutions didnt really work all that well. What would your model be, and can it be implemented reasonably? 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/