Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question

Changli Gao
2010-04-15T02:50:45Z

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%, and irqbalance is the existing daemon. It should be used and
> changed if necessary.
>
> Changli, my stronges argument about your patches is that our scheduler
> and memory affinity api (numactl driven) is bitmask oriented, giving the
> same weight to individual cpu or individual memory node.
>

It works with the assumption: the workloads handled in non-schedulable
context are less than the others. If most of work is done in
non-schedulable(softirq) context, scheduler can't keep load balance.

--
Regards，
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com)