Control: reassign -1 src:linux COntrol: retitle -1 SMP kernels should suggest irqbalance
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 00:14 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 03:10 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > (copying debian-kernel for reasons which will hopefully become obvious) > > > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 18:10:58 +0200 =?UTF-8?Q?Moritz_M=C3=BChlenhoff?= > > <j...@inutil.org> wrote: > > > In current Debian kernel there's no special Xen dom0 kernel image and > > > depending > > > on irqbalance in the kernel package would be overkill. > > > > Would it? I thought irqbalance is actually required even for native with > > modern kernels, since the kernel doesn't do any balancing by itself (any > > more, it did use to). > > I don't know that it's generally required, but it can be useful if there > is a lot of work done in interrupt or softirq context (and have multiple > processors). > > > Looking on my laptop for instance I see that all interrupts are going to > > CPU0 out of the 4 processes. On the other hand my workstation does seem > > to have balanced IRQs despite having no irqbalanced running, so I don't > > know. > > > > I reckon the kernel probably should recommend irqbalance these days, but > > in any case there is no reason for Xen to do something different (since > > IRQ balancing should work as on native). > > At least kernels that support SMP could recommend it. That sounds like a good idea to me. Presumably irqbalanced is mostly harmless for UP kernels, but I think we can avoid that recommends unless the auto-generation of debian/control gets in the way too much. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org