RE: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64?

[Nakajima, Jun]

>From: Arjan van de Ven [mailto:arjanv@xxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:57 AM
>To: Martin J. Bligh
>Cc: Jeff Garzik; Nakajima, Jun; Andrew Morton; Anton Blanchard; linux-
>kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: CONFIG_IRQBALANCE for AMD64?
>
>On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 10:46:18AM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I find the argument that it's hardware-specific control
code
>> a much better reason for it to belong in the kernel.
>
>Is it really hardware specific ??

I think automatic IRQ binding business should belong to the user-level;
it can use generic statistics, application, or platform configuration
knowledge.

The kernel-level should have some simple chipset model, such as lowest
priority delivery mode with finer granularity of control. The kirqd at
this point, is doing automatic IRQ binding business as well today,
although it does not literally bind them. So I think we need to remove
that part of code from kirqd. 

Jun

-
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/