linux-kernel - Re: IRQ Balance Question for Single but Multi-Core Processors

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706242252590.11964@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:54:45 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	Alan Piszcz <ap@...arrain.com>
Subject: Re: IRQ Balance Question for Single but Multi-Core Processors


On Jun 24 2007 16:29, Justin Piszcz wrote:
>
> Question regarding the IRQ balance daemon and the 2.6.x kernel.
>
> For a single-processor but dual or quad core CPU, should one be running the IRQ
> balancing daemon, will it result in increased performance?
>
> Or is IRQ balance mainly targeted at physical multi-processor systems?

There must be a reason it exists :)
For MC or MP or MCMP systems, it should be helpful indeed.
HT however, not so sure. But then again, MCHT and MCMPHT maybe.

(multi-core, multi-processor, hyperthreading, and combinations thereof.)


	Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/