Re: irq load balancing

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Venkat Subbiah <venkats@...>
Cc: Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 5:30 pm

Venkat Subbiah wrote:

Why are you trying to do this, anyway?  This is a classic example of fairness 
hurting both performance and efficiency.  Unbalanced distribution of a single 
IRQ gives superior performance.  There are cases when this is a worthwhile 
tradeoff, but the network stack is not one of them.  In the HPC world, people 
generally want to squeeze maximum performance out of CPU/cache/RAM so they just 
accept the imbalance because it performs better than balancing it, and 
irqbalance can keep things fair over longer intervals if that's important.  In 
the realtime world, people generally bind everything they can to one or two 
CPUs, and bind their realtime applications to the remaining ones to minimize 
contention.

Distributing your network interrupts in a round-robin fashion will make your 
computer do exactly one thing faster: heat up the room.

	-- Chris
-
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)