Re: 2.6.1 and irq balancing

[Nick Piggin]

Ethan Weinstein wrote:

> Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>
> > > Admittedly, the machine's load was not high when I took this sample.
> > > However, creating a great deal of load does not change these 
> > > statistics at all.  Being that there are patches available for 2.4.x 
> > > kernels to fix this, I don't think this at all by design, but what 
> > > do I know? =)
> > >  
>
> > 2.6 kernels don't need a patch to it as far as I understand. Are you
> > saying that with significant amount of load, you did not see any
> > distribution of interrupts? Today's threshold in the kernel is high
> > because we found moving around interrupts frequently rather hurt the
> > cache and thus lower the performance compared to "do nothing". Can you
> > try to create significant load with your network (eth0 and eh1) and see
> > what happens?
> > Jun 
>
>
> Here's the situation two days later, I created some brief periods of 
> high load on eth1 and I see we have some change:
>
>
>            CPU0       CPU1       CPU2       CPU3
>   0:  184932542          0    2592511          0    IO-APIC-edge  timer
>   1:       1875          0          0          0    IO-APIC-edge  i8042
>   2:          0          0          0          0          XT-PIC  cascade
>   3:    3046103          0          0          0    IO-APIC-edge  serial
>   8:          2          0          0          0    IO-APIC-edge  rtc
>   9:          0          0          0          0   IO-APIC-level  acpi
>  14:         76          0          0          0    IO-APIC-edge  ide0
>  16:    2978264          0          0          0   IO-APIC-level  
> sym53c8xx
>  22:    7838940          0          0          0   IO-APIC-level  eth0
>  48:     916078          0     125150          0   IO-APIC-level  aic79xx
>  49:    1099375          0          0          0   IO-APIC-level  aic79xx
>  54:   51484241        316   50560879        279   IO-APIC-level  eth1
> NMI:          0          0          0          0
> LOC:  187530735  187530988  187530981  187530986
> ERR:          0
> MIS:          0


Aside from the obvious imbalance between physical CPUs:
I think interrupts should be much more freely balanced between siblings
that share cache, otherwise process a running on CPU0 gets less time than
process b running on CPU1 because of the interrupt load.


> My argument is (see below).  This is an old 2x pentium2 @400, also 
> running 2.6, an old Compaq Proliant to be exact.  This machine 
> obviously has no HT, so why the balanced load?


IIRC the P2/3 APICs are set to a round robin delivery mode while the P4
ones are not. It is still not ideal though, while you have fairness, you now
have suboptimal performance.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/