[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080112050841.M73900@visp.net.lb>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 07:13:06 +0200
From: "Denys Fedoryshchenko" <denys@...p.net.lb>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, benny+usenet@...rsen.dk
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000 performance issue in 4 simultaneous links
Sorry. that i interfere in this subject.
Do you recommend CONFIG_IRQBALANCE to be enabled?
If it is enabled - irq's not jumping nonstop over processors. softirqd
changing this behavior.
If it is disabled, irq's distributed over each processor, and in loaded
systems it seems harmful.
I work a little yesterday with server with CONFIG_IRQBALANCE=no, 160kpps load.
It was packetloss-ing, till i set smp_affinity.
Maybe it is useful to put more info in Kconfig, since it is very important
for performance option.
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:41:09 -0800 (PST), David Miller wrote
> From: Benny Amorsen <benny usenet@...rsen.dk>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:09:32 0100
>
> > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
> >
> > > No IRQ balancing should be done at all for networking device
> > > interrupts, with zero exceptions. It destroys performance.
> >
> > Does irqbalanced need to be taught about this?
>
> The userland one already does.
>
> It's only the in-kernel IRQ load balancing for these (presumably
> powerpc) platforms that is broken.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Denys Fedoryshchenko
Technical Manager
Virtual ISP S.A.L.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists