| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:22:29 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> To: Jan Kasprzak <kas@...muni.cz> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: IRQ balancing on a router Jan Kasprzak wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > : Jan Kasprzak <kas@...muni.cz> wrote: > : > The result is > : > that the CPU which receives IRQs for the uplink interface > : > is 100 % busy (softirq mostly), while the other one is 90% idle. > : > : 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.... > > I am not sure whether this would help. In my case, the most of the > in-kernel CPU time is not spend in the irq handler per se, but in softirq > (i.e. checking the packet against iptables rules). there is some consideration of making softirqs that are raised run as part of the irq thread. or at least thoughts in that direction. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists