mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul <set@pobox.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IRQ Routing. [A 2.6 question about smp irq balancing]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:21:53 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031022012153.GA1620@squish.home.loc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7820000.1066746840@[10.10.2.4]>

"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>, on Tue Oct 21, 2003 [07:34:01 AM] said:
[paul said]
> > 	Ok, my question is, is this how it is supposed to be?
> > I ask because I am seeing a throughput decrease on 2.6 v 2.4
> > on hdparm -t, bonnie, kernel compile benchmarks, though interactivity
> > seems to be better.
> 
> I doubt that's caused by interrupt load, but try this:
> 

	Hi;

	Thanks;
	This seems to generate a more of a distribution.
(uptime 3 hours) You are correct that I notice no performance
difference.

Paul
set@pobox.com

           CPU0       CPU1       
  0:    5011222    5035676    IO-APIC-edge  timer
  1:       5441          0    IO-APIC-edge  i8042
  2:          0          0          XT-PIC  cascade
  3:       8203          1    IO-APIC-edge  serial
  4:      58980     356739    IO-APIC-edge  serial
  5:          0          0    IO-APIC-edge  eth0
  8:          2          0    IO-APIC-edge  rtc
 12:       4968       3423    IO-APIC-edge  i8042
 14:     119080      62085    IO-APIC-edge  ide0
 15:        142          0    IO-APIC-edge  ide1
 16:        101          1   IO-APIC-level  eth1
 17:        110      10782   IO-APIC-level  eth2
 19:       1776          0   IO-APIC-level  Ensoniq AudioPCI
NMI:   10044606   10041826 
LOC:   10042436   10042460 
ERR:          0
MIS:          0

> diff -urN linux-2.6.0-test4-clean/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> linux-2.6.0-test4-div10/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> --- linux-2.6.0-test4-clean/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c 2003-09-15
> 06:46:02.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.0-test4-div10/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c 2003-09-15
> 06:47:17.000000000 -0700
> @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@
>         unsigned long max_cpu_irq = 0, min_cpu_irq = (~0);
>         unsigned long move_this_load = 0;
>         int max_loaded = 0, min_loaded = 0;
> -       unsigned long useful_load_threshold = balanced_irq_interval +
> 10;
> +       unsigned long useful_load_threshold = (balanced_irq_interval +
> 10) / 10;
>         int selected_irq;
>         int tmp_loaded, first_attempt = 1;
>         unsigned long tmp_cpu_irq;

      reply	other threads:[~2003-10-22  1:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-20  8:03 IRQ Routing James Courtier-Dutton
2003-10-20 14:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-20 19:15   ` James Courtier-Dutton
2003-10-21  5:59   ` IRQ Routing. [A 2.6 question about smp irq balancing] Paul
2003-10-21 14:34     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-22  1:21       ` Paul [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20031022012153.GA1620@squish.home.loc \
    --to=set@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome