public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* RE: [PATCH] 2.5.31 Summit NUMA patch with dynamic IRQ balancing
@ 2002-08-26  7:05 Grover, Andrew
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Grover, Andrew @ 2002-08-26  7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'jamesclv@us.ibm.com', Andi Kleen; +Cc: linux-kernel

> From: James Cleverdon [mailto:jamesclv@us.ibm.com] 
> > What happens when you use the FULL ACPI support? I suspect 
> that you really
> > do want the interpreter, in order to evaluate _PRTs properly.

> Bingo!  With full ACPI turned on, the system does indeed 
> boot.  The extra I/O 
> APIC entries are being programmed from the PRT.
> 
> (Call chain is:  pci_acpi_init --> acpi_pci_irq_init --> 
> mp_parse_prt --> 
> io_apic_set_pci_routing)
> 
> So, given that quite a number of our customers would like to run with 
> hyperthreading turned on, but do not want full ACPI, what is 
> the right thing 
> to do in the HT-only case?  Add extra code to process the 
> PRT?  Fall back on 
> MPS's IRQ records?  Something else entirely?

The solution is ACPI. Full ACPI. What is the problem? I have devoted too
much time already to make  hybrid ACPI/MPS combos work, but that will never
be the right solution.

Please have your customers email me privately and tell me why ~100KB of mem
on a 1GB+ system is something us engineers should spend our valuable time
hacking around, when the correct solution already is implemented and
*works*.

Regards -- Andy

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] 2.5.31 Summit NUMA patch with dynamic IRQ balancing
@ 2002-08-24  0:29 Grover, Andrew
  2002-08-26  1:59 ` James Cleverdon
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Grover, Andrew @ 2002-08-24  0:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'jamesclv@us.ibm.com', Andi Kleen; +Cc: linux-kernel

> From: James Cleverdon [mailto:jamesclv@us.ibm.com] 
> > This should be moved to acpi.h
> 
> Will be, once I'm sure this is the right way to go.  As 
> mentioned earlier, I'm 
> having ACPI problems that seem to imply ACPI isn't building 
> the full IRQ 
> table.  In 2.4 we could let MPS do this.  Maybe 2.5 will need 
> to revert to 
> that behavior.

What happens when you use the FULL ACPI support? I suspect that you really
do want the interpreter, in order to evaluate _PRTs properly.

ISTR that the reason you are thinking that ACPI only is programming some of
the ioapic entries is because whatever is printing them is looking at the
mp_irqs array. Which is MPS specific. So ACPI doesn't bother filling it all
in. :)

Is that a bug? Should ACPI fill it in completely, or maybe not at all? Don't
know. But it is strictly unnecessary.

Regards -- Andy

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q disable irqbalance
@ 2002-08-13 21:24 Linus Torvalds
  2002-08-13 22:29 ` Andrew Theurer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-08-13 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Martin J. Bligh; +Cc: Alan Cox, linux-kernel, Andrew Theurer


On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> 
> Was that before or after you changed HZ to 1000? I *think* that increased
> the frequency of IO-APIC reprogramming by a factor of 10, though I might
> be misreading the code. If it does depend on HZ, I think that's bad.

The 1000Hz thing came much later, and I never noticed any impact of that 
on my machines.

(Note that this is all entrely subjective. I was very disappointed in the
feel of the first HT P4 machine I had for the first few weeks, but apart
from running lmbench - which looked ok even though it shows that P4's are
bad at system calls - I've not actually put numbers on it. But my feeling
was that the irq thing made a noticeable difference. Caveat emptor -
subjective feelings are not good).

> People in our benchmarking group (Andrew, cc'ed) have told me that
> reducing the frequency of IO-APIC reprogramming by a factor of 20 or
> so improves performance greatly - don't know what HZ that was at, but
> the whole thing seems a little overenthusiastic to me.

The rebalancing was certainly done with a 100Hz clock, so yes, it might 
have become much worse lately.

		Linus


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-08-26  7:01 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208131421190.3110-100000@penguin.transmeta.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found] ` <200208131729.50127.habanero@us.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found]   ` <20020813233007.GV14394@dualathlon.random.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found]     ` <200208221931.35052.jamesclv@us.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2002-08-23  7:11       ` [PATCH] 2.5.31 Summit NUMA patch with dynamic IRQ balancing Andi Kleen
2002-08-23  8:48         ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-23 14:12         ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-23 21:36         ` James Cleverdon
2002-08-26  7:05 Grover, Andrew
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-08-24  0:29 Grover, Andrew
2002-08-26  1:59 ` James Cleverdon
2002-08-13 21:24 [PATCH] NUMA-Q disable irqbalance Linus Torvalds
2002-08-13 22:29 ` Andrew Theurer
2002-08-13 23:30   ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-23  2:31     ` [PATCH] 2.5.31 Summit NUMA patch with dynamic IRQ balancing James Cleverdon

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox