From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Kierdelewicz Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:46:57 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] Intel or AMD is better processor for router (800+ users) Message-Id: <20061014134657.1ca38db8@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: References: <20061004190542.02D884B321C@poczta.interia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20061004190542.02D884B321C@poczta.interia.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: lartc@vger.kernel.org > The author highly recommends disabling IRQ balancing in the kernel > config, but does not clarify what this does. I tried googling but > didn't find much info. What does it exactly do, and why is disabling > it recommended/required? I haven't seen irq balance option in kernels for some time now. > It seems to me, IRQ balancing does not allow to specify interrupts > per device but assigns them automatically on the run, correct? It seems so. As I mentioned earlier I havn't seen irq balance option in recent kernels. Static irq2cpu assignment works well (even on HT processors). > While searching the web, I found reports about big performance > increases in 3D rendering due to disabling the feature. Can this be > true and why? I don't have a clue. I can say one thing - static irq2cpu assignment worx4me on linux routers hauling 400+kpps. Without it only one core/processor would be used. cheers, Marek Kierdelewicz _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc