netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] auto-limiting IRQ load take #2, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-F4

To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] auto-limiting IRQ load take #2, irq-rewrite-2.4.11-F4
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:16:33 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110031625330.7342-101000@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

Your approach is still wrong. Please do not accept this patch.

cheers,
jamal

On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>
> the attached patch contains a cleaned up version of IRQ auto-mitigation.
>
> - i've removed the max_rate limit and have streamlined the impact of the
>   load-estimator on do_IRQ() to this piece of code:
>
>         desc->total_contexts++;
>         if (unlikely(in_interrupt()))
>                 goto mitigate_irqload;
>
>   i dont think we can get much cheaper than this. (We could perhaps avoid
>   the total_contexts counter by saving a 'snapshot' of the existing
>   kstat.irqs array of counters in every timer tick and comparing the
>   snapshot to the current kstat.irqs values. That looked pretty unclean
>   though.)
>
> - the per-cpu irq counting in -D9 was incorrect as it collapsed all irq
>   handlers into a single counter.
>
> - i've removed the net-polling hacks - they are unrelated to this problem.
>
> the patch is against 2.4.11-pre2. (the eepro100.c fixes from the -ac tree
> are already included in -pre2, i only included them in this patch to make
> patching & testing against 2.4.10 easier.).
>
> (i'd like to stress the point again that the goal of this approach is
> *not* to be nice. This is an airbag mechanizm, it can and will hurt
> performance. But my box does not lock up anymore.)
>
>       Ingo
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>