Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for 64-bit x86 ?

[Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca>]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
>> kernel or kernel source? If there was a good place in the kernel 
>> source I'd not be against moving irqbalance there. [...]
> 
> would this be a good case study to use klibc and start up irqbalanced 
> automatically? I'd love it if we moved more of the 'system support' 
> userspace into the kernel proper, to keep it under control. (and to 
> simplify the compatibility and QA matrix)
..

Perhaps, but this also violates the principle that the kernel
should just *work* with sensible defaults.  I don't use an initrd,
or an initramfs, and have no intention of ever doing so.

I *like* having a single boot image with no unneeded/unwanted complexity.
It's only recently that I've even come round to using some loadable
modules for things like network drivers -- I prefer a single image
for as much as possible (like Linus there).

If putting a C-library and utilities "into the kernel" still leaves
me with a single image file, then.. maybe.  Seems clumsy, though.

Handling interrupts efficiently is a very basic, core function
for any operating system kernel.  With CONFIG_IRQBALANCE=y, Linux is
fine at present.  But that's not available in 64-bit mode,
so we have a deficiency there.

I guess I'll patch it into my kernels soon-ish.

Cheers