linux-kernel - Re: IRQ handling difference between i386 and x86

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: <1183218035.2894.13.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jun 2007 08:40:35 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IRQ handling difference between i386 and x86_64

On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 16:55 +0200, Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> It seems that IRQ handling is somehow different between i386 and x86_64.
> 
> In my Dell PowerEdge 1950 is it possible to enable interrupts spreading 
> over all CPUs. This a single CPU, four CORE system (Quad-Core E5335 Xeon) 
> so I think that interrupts migration may be useful. Unfortunately, it 
> works only with 32-bit kernel. Booting it with x86_64 leads to situation, 
> when all interrupts goes only to the first cpu matching a smp_affinity 
> mask.

arguably that is the most efficient behavior... round robin of
interrupts is the worst possible case in terms of performance

are you using irqbalance ? (www.irqbalance.org)


-
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/