Mark CONFIG_IRQBALANCE as not recommended any more. It eats too much
power, and better solutions are available in userspace.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>

---
commit 2665f7971b5b97830b028308553a78a95c131988
tree e1782cceebfb5900373469c0043d113de88f861f
parent f5085f6ea1c5771708c44a4a42ee217e760ff4a0
author Pavel <pavel@amd.ucw.cz> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:56:15 +0200
committer Pavel <pavel@amd.ucw.cz> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:56:15 +0200

 arch/i386/Kconfig |    9 ++++++---
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
index eba2d88..10f3c38 100644
--- a/arch/i386/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig
@@ -779,10 +779,13 @@ config EFI
 config IRQBALANCE
  	bool "Enable kernel irq balancing"
 	depends on SMP && X86_IO_APIC
-	default y
+	default n
 	help
- 	  The default yes will allow the kernel to do irq load balancing.
-	  Saying no will keep the kernel from doing irq load balancing.
+ 	  Saying yes will allow the kernel to do irq load balancing;
+	  but it generates too many CPU wakeups, eating power, and
+	  is better done in userspace.
+
+	  Say N.
 
 # turning this on wastes a bunch of space.
 # Summit needs it only when NUMA is on

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-

[ message continues ]

What about additionally a printk() during init and a 
feature-removal-schedule.txt entry scheduling removal

If you want people to notice it's deprecated you should add a


cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-

[ message continues ]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:57:09 +0200

Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>

-

[ message continues ]

ACK


-

[ message continues ]