Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-20 Thread Martin J. Bligh
>> > there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost >> > all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way >> > after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly >> > to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-20 Thread Martin J. Bligh
there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I expect when a

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Jeff Garzik
Joerg Sommrey wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Joerg Sommrey
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > > there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost > > all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way > > after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Martin J. Bligh
> > there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost > all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way > after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly > to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I expect

Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Joerg Sommrey
Hi all, there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I expect when

Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Joerg Sommrey
Hi all, there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I expect when

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Martin J. Bligh
there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly to both CPUs. Maybe it's intentional, but it's not what I expect when a

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Joerg Sommrey
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed uniformly to

Re: Question on CONFIG_IRQBALANCE / 2.6.x

2005-02-18 Thread Jeff Garzik
Joerg Sommrey wrote: On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:39:49PM -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote: there's something I don't understand: With IRQBALANCE *enabled* almost all interrupts are processed on CPU0. This changed in an unexpected way after disabling IRQBALANCE: now all interrupts are distributed