Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Saturday 24 November 2007 00:09, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ahh, hate to get off topic, but let's not perpetuate this myth. It > > wasn't Con, or CFS, or anything that showed fairness is some great new > > idea. Actually I was arguing for fairness first,

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Saturday 24 November 2007 00:09, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ahh, hate to get off topic, but let's not perpetuate this myth. It wasn't Con, or CFS, or anything that showed fairness is some great new idea. Actually I was arguing for fairness first, against

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ahh, hate to get off topic, but let's not perpetuate this myth. It > wasn't Con, or CFS, or anything that showed fairness is some great new > idea. Actually I was arguing for fairness first, against both Con and > Ingo, way back when the old

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ahh, hate to get off topic, but let's not perpetuate this myth. It wasn't Con, or CFS, or anything that showed fairness is some great new idea. Actually I was arguing for fairness first, against both Con and Ingo, way back when the old scheduler was

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 06:07, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:43:46 +1100 > > Of course it is, if you want to effectively use your resources. > > Imagine if the task balancer only polled once every 10s. > > but unlike the task balancer, moving an irq is really expensive. >

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 06:07, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:43:46 +1100 Of course it is, if you want to effectively use your resources. Imagine if the task balancer only polled once every 10s. but unlike the task balancer, moving an irq is really expensive. (at

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Jeff Garzik wrote: Take a look at usr/Makefile for how initramfs is automatically included in the image, right now. The intention at the time was to quickly follow up this stub (generated by gen_init_cpio) with a full inclusion of klibc + some basics like nfsroot. It should be a very

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: single-bzImage initrd was and is possible, Correct (though s/initrd/initramfs/). Take a look at usr/Makefile for how initramfs is automatically included in the image, right now. The intention at the time was to quickly follow up this stub (generated by gen_init_cpio)

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:15 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: > > On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, > > but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? because the in-kernel one is actually quite

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: i took that "Nope" as referring to my impression - but you in fact meant that i am not wrong? :-) So nothing to see here. single-bzImage initrd was and is possible, so we could in fact move chunks of system-related userland (such as irqbalanced) into the kernel proper?

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Nope. It runs inside an initramfs, of course; that initramfs is linked > into the kernel binary. would be nice to have a single-image variant for all of this.

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nope. It runs inside an initramfs, of course; that initramfs is linked into the kernel binary. would be nice to have a single-image variant for all of this. having the separate initrd was always trouble - and it's pointless as

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Nope. It runs inside an initramfs, of course; that initramfs is >>> linked into the kernel binary. >> >> would be nice to have a single-image variant for all of this. having >> the separate initrd was always trouble - and it's pointless as well.

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* H. Peter Anvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: >> * Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just >>> *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, >>> and have no intention of

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so. nor do i - i was under the impression that

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Mark Lord wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so. I *like* having a single boot image with no unneeded/unwanted complexity. It's only

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should > just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an > initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so. nor do i - i was under the impression that klibc was able to

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...] would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced automatically? I'd love it if we

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:02:43 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. Well, for my dualCore notebook, dualCore MythTV box, and QuadCore desktop, the behaviour of the existing, working, 32-bit kernel IRQBALANCE code outperforms the userspace utility. Mostly, I

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:02:43 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > .. > > Well, for my dualCore notebook, dualCore MythTV box, and QuadCore > desktop, the behaviour of the existing, working, 32-bit kernel > IRQBALANCE code outperforms the userspace utility. > > Mostly, I suspect, due to

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel > source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...] would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced automatically? I'd love it if we moved more of the

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:43:46 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: actually no. IRQ balancing is not a "fast" decision;

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > For that matter, I'd like to know why it has been decided that the > best place for IRQ balancing is in userspace. There is a lot of possible policy in it > It should be in kernel > IMO, and it would probably allow better power saving, performance, >

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:43:46 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 > > > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > actually no. IRQ balancing is not a "fast" decision; every > >

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

(resending this one to the list). Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:47:24 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .. After reading some of the replies, I installed it on my malfunctioning 64-bit system, but discovered it does not perform nearly as well as the kernel solution

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:52:48 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro All of which reminds me of perhaps *the* most important reason to keep core functionality like "IRQ distribution" *inside* the kernel: It has to pass peer review on this mailing list. that's a

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:52:48 -0500 Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro > > All of which reminds me of perhaps *the* most important reason to keep > core functionality like "IRQ distribution" *inside* the kernel: > >It has to pass peer review on this mailing list. that's a reason to keep it

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 > > Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > actually no. IRQ balancing is not a "fast" decision; every time > > > you > > > > I didn't say anything of the sort. But IRQ load could still

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Mark Lord wrote: Arjan van de Ven wrote: .. I listed a few; 1) it's policy 2) the memory is only needed for a short time (20 seconds or so) on single-socket machines 3) it makes decisions on "subjective" information such as interrupt device classes that the kernel currently just doesn't have

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: .. I listed a few; 1) it's policy 2) the memory is only needed for a short time (20 seconds or so) on single-socket machines 3) it makes decisions on "subjective" information such as interrupt device classes that the kernel currently just doesn't have (it could grow

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > actually no. IRQ balancing is not a "fast" decision; every time > > you > > I didn't say anything of the sort. But IRQ load could still fluctuate > a lot more rapidly than we'd like to wake up the irqbalancer. irq

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually no. IRQ balancing is not a fast decision; every time you I didn't say anything of the sort. But IRQ load could still fluctuate a lot more rapidly than we'd like to wake up the irqbalancer. irq load

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: .. I listed a few; 1) it's policy 2) the memory is only needed for a short time (20 seconds or so) on single-socket machines 3) it makes decisions on subjective information such as interrupt device classes that the kernel currently just doesn't have (it could grow that

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Mark Lord wrote: Arjan van de Ven wrote: .. I listed a few; 1) it's policy 2) the memory is only needed for a short time (20 seconds or so) on single-socket machines 3) it makes decisions on subjective information such as interrupt device classes that the kernel currently just doesn't have

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually no. IRQ balancing is not a fast decision; every time you I didn't say anything of the sort. But IRQ load could still fluctuate a lot more

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:52:48 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wro All of which reminds me of perhaps *the* most important reason to keep core functionality like IRQ distribution *inside* the kernel: It has to pass peer review on this mailing list. that's a reason to keep it in the

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:52:48 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wro All of which reminds me of perhaps *the* most important reason to keep core functionality like IRQ distribution *inside* the kernel: It has to pass peer review on this mailing list. that's a reason

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

(resending this one to the list). Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:47:24 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. After reading some of the replies, I installed it on my malfunctioning 64-bit system, but discovered it does not perform nearly as well as the kernel solution in

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:43:46 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually no. IRQ balancing is not a fast decision; every time you I

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For that matter, I'd like to know why it has been decided that the best place for IRQ balancing is in userspace. There is a lot of possible policy in it It should be in kernel IMO, and it would probably allow better power saving, performance,

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 02:43:46 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 21 November 2007 01:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:39 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: actually no. IRQ balancing is not a fast decision; every

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...] would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced automatically? I'd love it if we moved more of the

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:02:43 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. Well, for my dualCore notebook, dualCore MythTV box, and QuadCore desktop, the behaviour of the existing, working, 32-bit kernel IRQBALANCE code outperforms the userspace utility. Mostly, I suspect, due to it's much

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:02:43 -0500 Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. Well, for my dualCore notebook, dualCore MythTV box, and QuadCore desktop, the behaviour of the existing, working, 32-bit kernel IRQBALANCE code outperforms the userspace utility. Mostly, I

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...] would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced automatically? I'd love it if we

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so. nor do i - i was under the impression that klibc was able to work

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Mark Lord wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so. I *like* having a single boot image with no unneeded/unwanted complexity. It's only

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so. nor do i - i was under the impression that klibc

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so.

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ingo Molnar wrote: * Mark Lord [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel should just *work* with sensible defaults. I don't use an initrd, or an initramfs, and have no intention of

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. It runs inside an initramfs, of course; that initramfs is linked into the kernel binary. would be nice to have a single-image variant for all of this. having the separate initrd was always trouble - and it's pointless as well. (we rarely

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: * H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. It runs inside an initramfs, of course; that initramfs is linked into the kernel binary. would be nice to have a single-image variant for all of this. having the separate initrd was always trouble - and it's pointless as

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

* H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ingo Molnar wrote: * H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. It runs inside an initramfs, of course; that initramfs is linked into the kernel binary. would be nice to have a single-image variant for all of this. having the separate initrd

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: i took that Nope as referring to my impression - but you in fact meant that i am not wrong? :-) So nothing to see here. single-bzImage initrd was and is possible, so we could in fact move chunks of system-related userland (such as irqbalanced) into the kernel proper?

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:15 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? because the in-kernel one is actually quite bad. My

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Ingo Molnar wrote: single-bzImage initrd was and is possible, Correct (though s/initrd/initramfs/). Take a look at usr/Makefile for how initramfs is automatically included in the image, right now. The intention at the time was to quickly follow up this stub (generated by gen_init_cpio)

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Jeff Garzik wrote: Take a look at usr/Makefile for how initramfs is automatically included in the image, right now. The intention at the time was to quickly follow up this stub (generated by gen_init_cpio) with a full inclusion of klibc + some basics like nfsroot. It should be a very

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 16:37, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:15 +1100 > > For that matter, I'd like to know why it has been decided that the > > best place for IRQ balancing is in userspace. It should be in kernel > > IMO, and it would probably allow better power saving,

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:15 +1100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: > > On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, > > but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? because the in-kernel one is actually quite bad. > > My QuadCore box

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Nick Piggin wrote: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:37, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:29:29AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: Agreed. When userspace has something to do with the way IRQs are delivered, it's going to smell as bad as micro-kernels... The next step to a micro-kernel

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:37, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:29:29AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > Agreed. When userspace has something to do with the way IRQs are > > delivered, it's going to smell as bad as micro-kernels... > > The next step to a micro-kernel would then

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:29:29AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:17:15PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: > > > On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, > > > but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? > > > > > > I ask,

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:17:15PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: > > On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, > > but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? > > > > I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining > > reasonable

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: > On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, > but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? > > I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining > reasonable latencies during heavy I/O with fast devices. > > My 32-bit Core2Duo MythTV

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Tuesday 20 November 2007 Tarihinde 06:12:21 yazmıştı: > On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, > but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? > > I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining > reasonable latencies during heavy I/O with fast devices. > > My 32-bit Core2Duo

CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining reasonable latencies during heavy I/O with fast devices. My 32-bit Core2Duo MythTV box drops audio frames without it, but works perfectly *with*

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Tuesday 20 November 2007 Tarihinde 06:12:21 yazmıştı: On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining reasonable latencies during heavy I/O with fast devices. My 32-bit Core2Duo MythTV box

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining reasonable latencies during heavy I/O with fast devices. My 32-bit Core2Duo MythTV box

CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining reasonable latencies during heavy I/O with fast devices. My 32-bit Core2Duo MythTV box drops audio frames without it, but works perfectly *with*

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:17:15PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? I ask, because this feature seems almost essential to obtaining reasonable latencies

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:29:29AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:17:15PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? I ask, because this

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:37, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:29:29AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: Agreed. When userspace has something to do with the way IRQs are delivered, it's going to smell as bad as micro-kernels... The next step to a micro-kernel would then be

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

Nick Piggin wrote: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:37, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:29:29AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote: Agreed. When userspace has something to do with the way IRQs are delivered, it's going to smell as bad as micro-kernels... The next step to a micro-kernel

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:15 +1100 Nick Piggin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 20 November 2007 15:12, Mark Lord wrote: On 32-bit x86, we have CONFIG_IRQBALANCE available, but not on 64-bit x86. Why not? because the in-kernel one is actually quite bad. My QuadCore box works very

Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

On Tuesday 20 November 2007 16:37, Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:17:15 +1100 For that matter, I'd like to know why it has been decided that the best place for IRQ balancing is in userspace. It should be in kernel IMO, and it would probably allow better power saving,