linux-kernel - irqbalance beneficial these days?

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMVG2svsDbsRfqoPL6iSg2iBZ6TU3TuzOMrF0Fhz8j9-4i4v1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:38:03 +0800
From:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ra.org>
To:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: irqbalance beneficial these days?

It seems like the environment for which irqbalance was originally
designed to optimise was high-interrupt-rate workloads [1].

But, with NAPI, multiple queues, threaded/split handlers, TCP offload,
interrupt moderation, RDMA etc, does anyone know it to be beneficial
in servers over the default kernel MSI vector setup? I can see it only
being beneficial in certain specific circumstances (eg metro VoIP
router) and perhaps that's application dependent at that.

Thanks,
  Daniel

[1] https://irqbalance.org/documentation.html
-- 
Daniel J Blueman
--
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/