[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=UveeX1o1XX0DMERRe-=pY2H55The1cKg2BtUJ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:22:26 -0600
From: Robert Hancock <hancockrwd@...il.com>
To: Paweł Sikora <pluto@...k.net>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.36.1] IGB driver handles all ethX interrupts on single cpu core.
2010/12/8 Paweł Sikora <pluto@...k.net>:
> On Wednesday 08 of December 2010 02:44:25 Robert Hancock wrote:
>> On 12/07/2010 12:06 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>> > hi,
>> >
>> > i'm currently testing a new server with 2x opteron-6128 with dual gigabit port
>> > and observing that the igb driver uses only single core for all ethX interrupts.
>> > is it a correct behaviour for this driver?
>> >
>> > BR,
>> > Pawel.
>>
>> The CPU affinity for the IRQ isn't really under the driver's control. It
>> looks like all your interrupts are being handled on CPU0. You likely
>> need to run the irqbalance daemon.
>
> ok, so why e.g. on one machine (dual amd opteron) irqbalance daemon is required
> and on second machine (single intel quad-core) irqs are balanced w/o daemon?
> this looks inconsistent to me.
>
> $ cat /proc/interrupts
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
> 0: 49 2 0 0 IO-APIC-edge timer
> 1: 0 1 0 1 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 8: 13 11 12 13 IO-APIC-edge rtc0
> 9: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi
> 12: 0 0 3 1 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 16: 224 236 235 232 IO-APIC-fasteoi pata_marvell, uhci_hcd:usb3
> 17: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi saa7133[0], saa7133[0]
> 18: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi ehci_hcd:usb1, uhci_hcd:usb5, uhci_hcd:usb8
> 19: 695 672 660 630 IO-APIC-fasteoi uhci_hcd:usb7
> 21: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi uhci_hcd:usb4
> 23: 1 1 1 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi ehci_hcd:usb2, uhci_hcd:usb6
> 40: 3409 3446 3441 3403 PCI-MSI-edge ahci
> 41: 63 60 60 61 PCI-MSI-edge hda_intel
> 42: 3219 3180 3237 3192 PCI-MSI-edge radeon
> 43: 505 487 496 498 PCI-MSI-edge eth0
> NMI: 11 7 12 8 Non-maskable interrupts
> LOC: 14822 15293 17577 14404 Local timer interrupts
> SPU: 0 0 0 0 Spurious interrupts
> PMI: 11 7 12 8 Performance monitoring interrupts
> PND: 0 0 0 0 Performance pending work
> RES: 493 498 525 495 Rescheduling interrupts
> CAL: 3975 248 2729 299 Function call interrupts
> TLB: 937 1727 913 1600 TLB shootdowns
> TRM: 0 0 0 0 Thermal event interrupts
> THR: 0 0 0 0 Threshold APIC interrupts
> MCE: 0 0 0 0 Machine check exceptions
> MCP: 2 2 2 2 Machine check polls
> ERR: 3
> MIS: 0
Is the kernel configuration the same? Also, I think some chipsets
handle IRQ distribution differently than others (I believe if
interrupts are enabled for more than one CPU for a given IRQ line,
some chipsets will distribute them across CPUs and some send them all
to the same CPU).
--
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