[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E0D909EE5BB15A4699798539EA149D7F0779396C@ORSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:11:38 +0000
From: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter" <peter.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
CC: "Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
"robert.hu@...ux.intel.com" <robert.hu@...ux.intel.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pktgen: add a new sample script for 40G and above link
testing
On 8/25/17 10:59 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 14:24:28 +0000
> "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter" <peter.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/25/17 5:19 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tested with Intel XL710 NIC with Cisco 3172 switch.
>>>>
>>>> It would be even slightly better if the irqbalance service is turned
>>>> off outside.
>>>
>>> Yes, if you don't turn-off (kill) irqbalance it will move around the
>>> IRQs behind your back...
>>
>> Or you can use the --banirq option to irqbalance to ignore your device's
>> interrupts as targets for balancing.
>
> It might be worth mentioning that --banirq=X is specified for each IRQ
> that you want to exclude, and --banirq is simply specified multiple
> times on the command line.
>
> Is it possible to tell a running irqbalance that I want to excluded an
> extra IRQ? (just before I do my manual adjustment).
It isn't possible today, since we don't have a way to attach a
foreground/oneshot irqbalance run to a currently-running daemon. That's
an interesting feature enhancement...I can add it to our list as a
feature request so I don't forget about it. That way I can also get
Neil's thoughts on this.
-PJ
Powered by blists - more mailing lists