WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Question Also regarding interrupt balancing

To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Question Also regarding interrupt balancing
From: harish <mvharish@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:51:06 -0700
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 08:51:28 -0700
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=eAND/wXuSUncnoVLCkG5KN0Frypdkf0jiRcz1l8wbDXkYYhYNzF13VRsg85G6zwZJAPHDMozRCKvwTp3PQAeZE24ac77AIL+l/gGtwJjii09+TgK/QKf7TtjTbIPjAyG7DySjzR8wY7NLhxleu+OTbCN3dyB7HzwZSL23oELvvg=
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <0dc18039de2a59cc81de532ca1ba5f3e@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <a33d0a9f0605220943q75af2d77m8fbf1508a2ad9a88@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3289dc4a0f8d31e751f7fb5edbb0066a@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <a33d0a9f0606091139w5e5178f7x28d98db5721ceb76@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <260b1f3e22421d58dd152a6969f106fc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <a33d0a9f0606100958i75dd812at1fa420966f92189b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <9bae6f237b7ec1b9cd78ca745bee1e41@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <a33d0a9f0606121642k40b0b3cao5bc0473944ad2ee7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <0dc18039de2a59cc81de532ca1ba5f3e@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Keir,
I had tried the following experiment on a 4-way machine:

1) Pin the physical interrupts for the physical nic to pcpu1
2) Pin the domU to pcpu3

And ran a quick netperf test. Noticed that the cpu utilization was around ~50% on pcpu0 although my interrupts were being pinned to pcpu2 and domU on pcpu3. That is when I noticed that vif#id.0 has a dynamic irq which is serviced by pcpu0. Does this irq always run on pcpu0? Considering that it is dynamic, I understand that we cannot change the affinity and so am wondering if there some other configuration related to it.

Any suggestions/help would be great.

Thanks,
harish



On 6/13/06, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 Jun 2006, at 00:42, harish wrote:

> echo 2 > /proc/irq/20/smp_affinity [...works..]
> echo 4 > /proc/irq/20/smp_affinity [...works..]
> echo 8 > /proc/irq/20/smp_affinity [...works..]
>
> But, a cumulative does not work...meaning...
> echo 3>
> echo 5>
> echo f> etc.... do not work.
>
> Is that a bug or is it by design?

You should find it locks onto the first CPU in the mask that you
specify. As I said, the kernel does not load-balance IRQs so it
currently does not make sense to specify multi-cpu cpumasks. So this is
by design, for now.

  -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel