All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul <set@pobox.com>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: IRQ Routing. [A 2.6 question about smp irq balancing]
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:21:53 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20031022012153.GA1620@squish.home.loc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7820000.1066746840@[10.10.2.4]>

"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>, on Tue Oct 21, 2003 [07:34:01 AM] said:
[paul said]
> > 	Ok, my question is, is this how it is supposed to be?
> > I ask because I am seeing a throughput decrease on 2.6 v 2.4
> > on hdparm -t, bonnie, kernel compile benchmarks, though interactivity
> > seems to be better.
> 
> I doubt that's caused by interrupt load, but try this:
> 

	Hi;

	Thanks;
	This seems to generate a more of a distribution.
(uptime 3 hours) You are correct that I notice no performance
difference.

Paul
set@pobox.com

           CPU0       CPU1       
  0:    5011222    5035676    IO-APIC-edge  timer
  1:       5441          0    IO-APIC-edge  i8042
  2:          0          0          XT-PIC  cascade
  3:       8203          1    IO-APIC-edge  serial
  4:      58980     356739    IO-APIC-edge  serial
  5:          0          0    IO-APIC-edge  eth0
  8:          2          0    IO-APIC-edge  rtc
 12:       4968       3423    IO-APIC-edge  i8042
 14:     119080      62085    IO-APIC-edge  ide0
 15:        142          0    IO-APIC-edge  ide1
 16:        101          1   IO-APIC-level  eth1
 17:        110      10782   IO-APIC-level  eth2
 19:       1776          0   IO-APIC-level  Ensoniq AudioPCI
NMI:   10044606   10041826 
LOC:   10042436   10042460 
ERR:          0
MIS:          0

> diff -urN linux-2.6.0-test4-clean/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> linux-2.6.0-test4-div10/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c
> --- linux-2.6.0-test4-clean/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c 2003-09-15
> 06:46:02.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.0-test4-div10/arch/i386/kernel/io_apic.c 2003-09-15
> 06:47:17.000000000 -0700
> @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@
>         unsigned long max_cpu_irq = 0, min_cpu_irq = (~0);
>         unsigned long move_this_load = 0;
>         int max_loaded = 0, min_loaded = 0;
> -       unsigned long useful_load_threshold = balanced_irq_interval +
> 10;
> +       unsigned long useful_load_threshold = (balanced_irq_interval +
> 10) / 10;
>         int selected_irq;
>         int tmp_loaded, first_attempt = 1;
>         unsigned long tmp_cpu_irq;

      reply	other threads:[~2003-10-22  1:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-10-20  8:03 IRQ Routing James Courtier-Dutton
2003-10-20 14:23 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-20 19:15   ` James Courtier-Dutton
2003-10-21  5:59   ` IRQ Routing. [A 2.6 question about smp irq balancing] Paul
2003-10-21 14:34     ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-10-22  1:21       ` Paul [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20031022012153.GA1620@squish.home.loc \
    --to=set@pobox.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.