On 6 Jan 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 15:00, Steffen Persvold wrote:
> > I discovered that if I renice the ksoftirqd processes to level 0, the
> > performance was actually better with the NAPI enabled driver compared to
> > the one without (as was intended my NAPI IIRC). With the default nice
> > level (19) on the ksoftirqd processes, the performance on multithreaded
> > programs was pretty lousy with the NAPI enabled driver.
> >
> > Any reason why the ksoftirqd shouldn't be nice level 0 by default ? Is
> > this already fixed in 2.4.21-pre series ?
>
> Hack the code to only fall back to ksoftirqd when there are say 10 rather
> than 1 pending event and it should perform even better but still handle
> overload properly
>
Ok I can try that, but what about the nice level of ksoftirqd ? Any
specific reason for it beeing 19 (lowest priority) and not 0 (equally to
most other processes in the system) ?
Regards,
--
Steffen Persvold | Scali AS
mailto:sp@scali.com | http://www.scali.com
Tel: (+47) 2262 8950 | Olaf Helsets vei 6
Fax: (+47) 2262 8951 | N0621 Oslo, NORWAY
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 07 2003 - 22:00:32 EST