> On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 10:28 -0500, Protasevich, Natalie wrote:
>
> > I'd like also to question current policies of user space
> irqbalanced.
> > It seems to just go round-robin without much heuristics involved.
>
> only for the timer interrupt and only because "people" didn't
> want to see it bound to a specific CPU. For all others
> there's quite some heuristics actually
Ah, this explains a lot. I was planning to try binding the timer to a
CPU or a node (as soon as get a system for testing).
>
> > We are
> > seeing loss of timer interrupts on our systems - and the more
> > processors the more noticeable it is, but it starts even on 8x
> > partitions; on 48x system I see about 50% loss, on both ia32 and
> > x86_64 (haven't checked on
> > ia64 yet). With say 16 threads it is unsettling to see 70% overall
> > idle time, and still only 40-50% of interrupts go through. System's
> > time is not affected, so the problem is on the back burner
> for now :)
> > It's not clear yet whether this is software or hardware fault,
>
> I'd call it a hardware fault. But them I'm biased.
It is the main suspect for now, yes (I tend to be biased this way too :)
Those are NUMA machines that run as non-NUMA sometimes, and I still need
to sort out if it happens in both cases, or either and all the aspects
that may have come into play.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
