RE: irq load balancing

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...>
Cc: Chris Snook <csnook@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:02 pm

Since most network devices have a single status register for both
receiver and transmit (and errors and the like), which needs a lock to
protect access, you will likely end up with serious thrashing of moving
the lock between cpus.

Since most network devices have a single status register for both
receiver and transmit (and errors and the like)
plan on keeping on the same processor. The network driver is actually
tg3. Will looks closely into the driver.

Thx,
Venkat


-----Original Message-----
From: Lennart Sorensen [mailto:lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 1:45 PM
To: Venkat Subbiah
Cc: Chris Snook; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: irq load balancing

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 01:31:39PM -0700, Venkat Subbiah wrote:
the
kernel
stack.

Since most network devices have a single status register for both
receiver and transmit (and errors and the like), which needs a lock to
protect access, you will likely end up with serious thrashing of moving
the lock between cpus.

--
Len Sorensen
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
irq load balancing , Venkat Subbiah, (Tue Sep 11, 7:18 pm)
Re: irq load balancing, Chris Snook, (Wed Sep 12, 5:44 pm)
RE: irq load balancing, Venkat Subbiah, (Thu Sep 13, 4:31 pm)
Re: irq load balancing, Lennart Sorensen, (Thu Sep 13, 4:44 pm)
RE: irq load balancing, Venkat Subbiah, (Thu Sep 13, 5:02 pm)
Re: irq load balancing, Chris Snook, (Thu Sep 13, 5:30 pm)
Re: irq load balancing, Arjan van de Ven, (Wed Sep 12, 10:47 am)
Re: irq load balancing, kalash nainwal, (Wed Sep 12, 7:55 am)
Re: irq load balancing, Stephen Hemminger, (Wed Sep 12, 7:51 am)