Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps

[Chris Snook]

Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
> > Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
>
> > > > Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to
> > > > be
> > > > able to be turned-off without turning the code.  That leaves me in
> > > > agreement
> > > > with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be
> > > > preferable.
> > > > It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice.
> > >
> > > I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of
> > > intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple
> > > daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's
> > > kernel stack, why not?
> > Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have
> > repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where
> > my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am
> > not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing.
> >
> > That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on
> > a running system without having to roll bits or reboot.
>
> Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it?

Except the irq balancing is system-wide.  Adding per-device exemptions to an 
obsolete feature seems like the wrong way to go.

-- Chris
--
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/