netdev - Re: Irq architecture for multi-core network driver.

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>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jesse.brandeburg@...il.com
Cc:	ebiederm@...ssion.com, ddaney@...iumnetworks.com,
	cfriesen@...tel.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: Irq architecture for multi-core network driver.

From: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:28:10 -0700

> Yes, I know Arjan and others will say you should always run
> irqbalance, but some people don't and some distros don't ship it
> enabled by default (or their version doesn't work for one reason or
> another)  The question is should the kernel work better by default
> *without* irqbalance loaded, or does it not matter?

I think requiring irqbalanced for optimal behavior is more
than reasonable.

And since we explicitly took that policy logic out of the
kernel it makes absolutely no sense to put it back there.

It's policy, and policy is (largely) userspace.
--
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