[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B0BF10C.6070609@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:43:24 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com" <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: Add node_affinity CPU masks for smarter irqbalance
hints
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 00:59 -0800, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
>>> This all sounds backwards.. we've got a perfectly functional interface
>>> for affinity -- which people object to being used for some reason. So
>>> you add another interface on top, and that is ok?
>>>
>> But it's not functional. If I set the affinity in smp_affinity, then
>> irqbalance will override it 10 seconds later.
>
> And here I was thinking the kernel round-robins IRQ delivery on the mask
> specified there.
the kernel does no such thing, nor has code to do so.
> Are you talking about some daft userspace thing that
> writes into the irq smp_affinity to effect irq balancing?
thanks ;)
--
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