linux-kernel - Re: IRQ balancing on a router

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: <48E634B7.60002@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:05:27 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
CC:	Jan Kasprzak <kas@...muni.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IRQ balancing on a router

Jason Baron wrote:
>> one of the hard cases for irqbalance is that irqbalance doesn't have a
>> way to find out the actual cpu time spend in the handlers. For
>> networking it makes an estimate just based on the number of packets
>> (which is better than nothing)... but that breaks down if you have an
>> non-symmetry in CPU costs per packet like you have.
>>
>> The good news is that irqthreads at least have the potential to solve
>> this "lack of information"; if not, we could consider doing a form of
>> microaccounting for irq handlers....
>>
>>
> 
> perhaps, this could be addressed using tracepoints. The currently
> proposed ones are at the beginning and end of 'handle_IRQ_event()'. See:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121616099830280&w=2
> 
something that you always need should not be a tracepoint.

--
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/