From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756229AbYDUVJ3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:09:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752009AbYDUVJL (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:09:11 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.177]:52978 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755208AbYDUVJI (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:09:08 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:08:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> To: Rick Jones cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>, Kok@vger.kernel.org, Auke , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Anton Titov , Chris Snook , "H. Willstrand" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Brandeburg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps In-Reply-To: <480CF2C0.9050208@hp.com> Message-ID: References: <480CC3D8.3040700@hp.com> <480CF2C0.9050208@hp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-From: 7eggert@gmx.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19APHEr5TZGuZ5I0rPnBK36hEHcyploJCYSVaD 6R9lsLJ34QFhnyACHefCZivZz7+GJQ88uRTP37sZbIZuUHPiZw ZcYmV2EK59lGIQhCH1kYA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote: > Bodo Eggert wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote: > > > Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to > > > be > > > able to be turned-off without turning the code. That leaves me in > > > agreement > > > with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be > > > preferable. > > > It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice. > > > > > > I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of > > intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple > > daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's > > kernel stack, why not? > > Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have > repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where > my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am > not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing. > > That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on > a running system without having to roll bits or reboot. Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it? -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 34. The network's down, but we're working on it. Come back after diner. (Usually said at 2200 the night before thesis deadline... )