Re: IRQ balancing on a router

[Arjan van de Ven]

Jason Baron wrote:
> > one of the hard cases for irqbalance is that irqbalance doesn't have a
> > way to find out the actual cpu time spend in the handlers. For
> > networking it makes an estimate just based on the number of packets
> > (which is better than nothing)... but that breaks down if you have an
> > non-symmetry in CPU costs per packet like you have.
> >
> > The good news is that irqthreads at least have the potential to solve
> > this "lack of information"; if not, we could consider doing a form of
> > microaccounting for irq handlers....
>
> perhaps, this could be addressed using tracepoints. The currently
> proposed ones are at the beginning and end of 'handle_IRQ_event()'. See:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121616099830280&w=2
something that you always need should not be a tracepoint.

--
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/