Re: irqbalance mandatory on SMP kernels?

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>]

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 14:42 +0200, Erik Mouw wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:19:17PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > but spreading IRQ's across all of the CPU's doesn't seem like it's
> > > ever the right answer.
> > 
> > well it is in some cases, imagine having 2 cpus and 2 gige nics that are
> > very busy doing webserving. That's an obvious case where 1-nic-per-cpu
> > ends up doing the right thing... the way it ends up is that each nic has
> > a full cpu for itself and it's own apaches... almost fully independent
> > of the other one. Now if you moved both irqs to the same cpu, the
> > apaches would follow, because if they didn't then you'd be bouncing
> > their data *all the time*. And at that point the other cpu will become
> > bored ;)
> 
> So what happens with a dual amd64 system where each CPU has its "own"
> NIC? Something like this:

as long as the irqs are spread the apaches will (on average) follow your
irq to the right cpu. Only if you put both irqs on the same cpu you have
an issue