Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Martin J. Bligh wrote: --Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:30:53 -0500): Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. If kirqd is moving NIC interrupts, it's broken. (and another reason why irqbalanced is preferable) Why is it broken to move NIC interrupts? Obviously you don't want to rotate them around a lot, but in the interests of fairness to other processes, it seems reasonable to migrate them occasionally (IIRC, kirqd rate limits to once a second or something). This has been explained to you before, search your email archives... The main problem that has been seen in the field SMP packet ordering, but a secondary problem observed is cache misses. Just NAPI mitigates this somewhat (no pun intended). Overall, kirqd should be avoided except in special situations. It doesn't know about such policy things as network-specific or storage-specific irq balancing (and shouldn't). Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
> I've noticed this problem for a while, but only now decided to ask. > Interrupt balancing doesn't do anything on my system. > >CPU0 CPU1 > 0: 31931808 0IO-APIC-edge timer > 1: 76595 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 > 8: 1 0IO-APIC-edge rtc > 9: 1 0 IO-APIC-level acpi > 14:122 1IO-APIC-edge ide0 > 16:4074456 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd, uhci_hcd, [EMAIL > PROTECTED]:1:0:0 > 17:4295132 0 IO-APIC-level Intel ICH5 > 18:2070933 0 IO-APIC-level libata, uhci_hcd, eth0 > 19: 887311 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd > 22: 572530 0 IO-APIC-level ath0 > NMI: 31931749 31931636 (I've since disabled the nmi_watchdog) > LOC: 31931252 31931251 > ERR: 0 > MIS: 0 > > I enabled the debugging and found that it doesn't think it's worth the > effort. Is that correct? Not a complaint, just curious! I think it's nothing to do with HT, just the rate you're sending intterrupts at isn't high enough to bother rotating. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
--Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:30:53 -0500): > Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: >> You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it >> has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the >> time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which >> the balancer start moving things around. >> >> You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from >> the disk. > > If kirqd is moving NIC interrupts, it's broken. > > (and another reason why irqbalanced is preferable) Why is it broken to move NIC interrupts? Obviously you don't want to rotate them around a lot, but in the interests of fairness to other processes, it seems reasonable to migrate them occasionally (IIRC, kirqd rate limits to once a second or something). M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
--Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (on Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:30:53 -0500): Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. If kirqd is moving NIC interrupts, it's broken. (and another reason why irqbalanced is preferable) Why is it broken to move NIC interrupts? Obviously you don't want to rotate them around a lot, but in the interests of fairness to other processes, it seems reasonable to migrate them occasionally (IIRC, kirqd rate limits to once a second or something). M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
I've noticed this problem for a while, but only now decided to ask. Interrupt balancing doesn't do anything on my system. CPU0 CPU1 0: 31931808 0IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 76595 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 8: 1 0IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 1 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 14:122 1IO-APIC-edge ide0 16:4074456 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd, uhci_hcd, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:0:0 17:4295132 0 IO-APIC-level Intel ICH5 18:2070933 0 IO-APIC-level libata, uhci_hcd, eth0 19: 887311 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd 22: 572530 0 IO-APIC-level ath0 NMI: 31931749 31931636 (I've since disabled the nmi_watchdog) LOC: 31931252 31931251 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 I enabled the debugging and found that it doesn't think it's worth the effort. Is that correct? Not a complaint, just curious! I think it's nothing to do with HT, just the rate you're sending intterrupts at isn't high enough to bother rotating. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Martin J. Bligh wrote: --Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (on Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:30:53 -0500): Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. If kirqd is moving NIC interrupts, it's broken. (and another reason why irqbalanced is preferable) Why is it broken to move NIC interrupts? Obviously you don't want to rotate them around a lot, but in the interests of fairness to other processes, it seems reasonable to migrate them occasionally (IIRC, kirqd rate limits to once a second or something). This has been explained to you before, search your email archives... The main problem that has been seen in the field SMP packet ordering, but a secondary problem observed is cache misses. Just NAPI mitigates this somewhat (no pun intended). Overall, kirqd should be avoided except in special situations. It doesn't know about such policy things as network-specific or storage-specific irq balancing (and shouldn't). Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. If kirqd is moving NIC interrupts, it's broken. (and another reason why irqbalanced is preferable) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Should kirqd work on HT?
You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. Thanks, Venki >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigel >Cunningham >Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 1:02 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List >Subject: Re: Should kirqd work on HT? > >Hi. > >On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:44, Kwijibo wrote: >> My guess is that irqbalance is not running. > >No. It is. > >USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND >root 301 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 16:52 0:00 [kirqd] > >The debugging info reports that it doesn't think it's worth doing the >balancing. > >Regards, > >Nigel >-- >Nigel Cunningham >Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia >http://www.cyclades.com > >Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 21:58 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi again. > > Didn't realise it was going to take nothing to install, so I've done it. > IRQs are running on cpu 1 now. Is there some documentation somewhere? > I'm wondering whether I can compile kirqd out. with irqbalance running yes you can compile kirqd out.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi again. Didn't realise it was going to take nothing to install, so I've done it. IRQs are running on cpu 1 now. Is there some documentation somewhere? I'm wondering whether I can compile kirqd out. Thanks and regards, Nigel On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:36, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:07 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi Jeff. > > > > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > What are the results of running irqbalanced? > > > > You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results > > if that's what you mean. > > no Jeff meant > http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ > that app most likely > -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi, On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:36, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:07 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Hi Jeff. > > > > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > > What are the results of running irqbalanced? > > > > You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results > > if that's what you mean. > > no Jeff meant > http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ > that app most likely Oh... Ok. Never heard of it before. I'll download it now, but I'm about to go to bed now so the answer will be a while. Thanks for the reply. Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:02 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:44, Kwijibo wrote: > > My guess is that irqbalance is not running. > > No. It is. > > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > root 301 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 16:52 0:00 [kirqd] > > The debugging info reports that it doesn't think it's worth doing the > balancing. I guess the question was about the userspace irqbalance - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:07 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi Jeff. > > On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > What are the results of running irqbalanced? > > You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results > if that's what you mean. no Jeff meant http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ that app most likely - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi Jeff.
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> What are the results of running irqbalanced?
You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results
if that's what you mean.
>From memory though, it got to not_worth_the_effort via this code:
if (tmp_loaded == -1) {
/* In the case of small number of heavy interrupt sources,
* loading some of the cpus too much. We use Ingo's original
* approach to rotate them around.
*/
if (!first_attempt && imbalance >= useful_load_threshold) {
rotate_irqs_among_cpus(useful_load_threshold);
return;
}
goto not_worth_the_effort;
}
(arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c:449.
Regards,
Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia
http://www.cyclades.com
Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:44, Kwijibo wrote: > My guess is that irqbalance is not running. No. It is. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 301 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 16:52 0:00 [kirqd] The debugging info reports that it doesn't think it's worth doing the balancing. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:44, Kwijibo wrote: My guess is that irqbalance is not running. No. It is. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 301 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 16:52 0:00 [kirqd] The debugging info reports that it doesn't think it's worth doing the balancing. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi Jeff.
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Nigel Cunningham wrote:
What are the results of running irqbalanced?
You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results
if that's what you mean.
From memory though, it got to not_worth_the_effort via this code:
if (tmp_loaded == -1) {
/* In the case of small number of heavy interrupt sources,
* loading some of the cpus too much. We use Ingo's original
* approach to rotate them around.
*/
if (!first_attempt imbalance = useful_load_threshold) {
rotate_irqs_among_cpus(useful_load_threshold);
return;
}
goto not_worth_the_effort;
}
(arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c:449.
Regards,
Nigel
--
Nigel Cunningham
Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia
http://www.cyclades.com
Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:02 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:44, Kwijibo wrote: My guess is that irqbalance is not running. No. It is. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 301 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 16:52 0:00 [kirqd] The debugging info reports that it doesn't think it's worth doing the balancing. I guess the question was about the userspace irqbalance - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:07 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi Jeff. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: Nigel Cunningham wrote: What are the results of running irqbalanced? You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results if that's what you mean. no Jeff meant http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ that app most likely - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi, On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:36, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:07 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi Jeff. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: Nigel Cunningham wrote: What are the results of running irqbalanced? You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results if that's what you mean. no Jeff meant http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ that app most likely Oh... Ok. Never heard of it before. I'll download it now, but I'm about to go to bed now so the answer will be a while. Thanks for the reply. Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Hi again. Didn't realise it was going to take nothing to install, so I've done it. IRQs are running on cpu 1 now. Is there some documentation somewhere? I'm wondering whether I can compile kirqd out. Thanks and regards, Nigel On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:36, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 20:07 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi Jeff. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:52, Jeff Garzik wrote: Nigel Cunningham wrote: What are the results of running irqbalanced? You mean the debugging output? I can reenable it and record the results if that's what you mean. no Jeff meant http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/irqbalance/ that app most likely -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 21:58 +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi again. Didn't realise it was going to take nothing to install, so I've done it. IRQs are running on cpu 1 now. Is there some documentation somewhere? I'm wondering whether I can compile kirqd out. with irqbalance running yes you can compile kirqd out.. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Should kirqd work on HT?
You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. Thanks, Venki -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigel Cunningham Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 1:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Should kirqd work on HT? Hi. On Sat, 2005-02-19 at 17:44, Kwijibo wrote: My guess is that irqbalance is not running. No. It is. USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 301 0.0 0.0 00 ?SW 16:52 0:00 [kirqd] The debugging info reports that it doesn't think it's worth doing the balancing. Regards, Nigel -- Nigel Cunningham Software Engineer, Canberra, Australia http://www.cyclades.com Ph: +61 (2) 6292 8028 Mob: +61 (417) 100 574 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: You are right. Kernel balancer doesn't move around the irqs, unless it has too many interrupts. The logic is moving around interrupts all the time will not be good on caches. So, there is a threshold above which the balancer start moving things around. You should see them moving around if you do 'ping -f' or a big 'dd' from the disk. If kirqd is moving NIC interrupts, it's broken. (and another reason why irqbalanced is preferable) Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi all. I've noticed this problem for a while, but only now decided to ask. Interrupt balancing doesn't do anything on my system. CPU0 CPU1 0: 31931808 0IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 76595 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 8: 1 0IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 1 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 14:122 1IO-APIC-edge ide0 16:4074456 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd, uhci_hcd, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:0:0 17:4295132 0 IO-APIC-level Intel ICH5 18:2070933 0 IO-APIC-level libata, uhci_hcd, eth0 19: 887311 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd 22: 572530 0 IO-APIC-level ath0 NMI: 31931749 31931636 (I've since disabled the nmi_watchdog) LOC: 31931252 31931251 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 I enabled the debugging and found that it doesn't think it's worth the effort. Is that correct? Not a complaint, just curious! What are the results of running irqbalanced? Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
My guess is that irqbalance is not running. Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi all. I've noticed this problem for a while, but only now decided to ask. Interrupt balancing doesn't do anything on my system. CPU0 CPU1 0: 31931808 0IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 76595 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 8: 1 0IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 1 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 14:122 1IO-APIC-edge ide0 16:4074456 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd, uhci_hcd, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:0:0 17:4295132 0 IO-APIC-level Intel ICH5 18:2070933 0 IO-APIC-level libata, uhci_hcd, eth0 19: 887311 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd 22: 572530 0 IO-APIC-level ath0 NMI: 31931749 31931636 (I've since disabled the nmi_watchdog) LOC: 31931252 31931251 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 I enabled the debugging and found that it doesn't think it's worth the effort. Is that correct? Not a complaint, just curious! Regards, Nigel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
My guess is that irqbalance is not running. Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi all. I've noticed this problem for a while, but only now decided to ask. Interrupt balancing doesn't do anything on my system. CPU0 CPU1 0: 31931808 0IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 76595 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 8: 1 0IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 1 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 14:122 1IO-APIC-edge ide0 16:4074456 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd, uhci_hcd, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:0:0 17:4295132 0 IO-APIC-level Intel ICH5 18:2070933 0 IO-APIC-level libata, uhci_hcd, eth0 19: 887311 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd 22: 572530 0 IO-APIC-level ath0 NMI: 31931749 31931636 (I've since disabled the nmi_watchdog) LOC: 31931252 31931251 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 I enabled the debugging and found that it doesn't think it's worth the effort. Is that correct? Not a complaint, just curious! Regards, Nigel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Should kirqd work on HT?
Nigel Cunningham wrote: Hi all. I've noticed this problem for a while, but only now decided to ask. Interrupt balancing doesn't do anything on my system. CPU0 CPU1 0: 31931808 0IO-APIC-edge timer 1: 76595 0IO-APIC-edge i8042 8: 1 0IO-APIC-edge rtc 9: 1 0 IO-APIC-level acpi 14:122 1IO-APIC-edge ide0 16:4074456 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd, uhci_hcd, [EMAIL PROTECTED]:1:0:0 17:4295132 0 IO-APIC-level Intel ICH5 18:2070933 0 IO-APIC-level libata, uhci_hcd, eth0 19: 887311 0 IO-APIC-level uhci_hcd 22: 572530 0 IO-APIC-level ath0 NMI: 31931749 31931636 (I've since disabled the nmi_watchdog) LOC: 31931252 31931251 ERR: 0 MIS: 0 I enabled the debugging and found that it doesn't think it's worth the effort. Is that correct? Not a complaint, just curious! What are the results of running irqbalanced? Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
