On 02/25/2014 05:21 AM, David Laight wrote: > From: Prarit Bhargava > ... >> What has caused that check to be necessary is that the ixgbe driver is now >> allocating so many interrupts that on large systems which full sockets are >> taken >> in and out of service, it is possible that there are not enough empty vectors >> for all the irqs on a down'd cpu. IMO what the ixgbe driver is effectively >> doing is starving the system of resources. If I rmmod the ixgbe driver (and >> free it's irqs of course) I have no problem in taking all cpus except 1 out >> of >> service. > > If I read that correctly it looks as though ixgbe should be allocating > a number of interrupts on each cpu - for the interrupts it wants to take > on that cpu.
Yes, the code currently does it. > > Then taking the cpu out of service would 'just' require that the interrupts > that are tied to that cpu be removed first? Yes, that would happen with a cpu notifier (I've already written a simple dummy one that just printk's when called). I started to implement a single queue teardown but hit some of these enumeration issues. I'd like to fix these first and then get to the teardown. P. > > David > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Flow-based real-time traffic analytics software. Cisco certified tool. Monitor traffic, SLAs, QoS, Medianet, WAAS etc. with NetFlow Analyzer Customize your own dashboards, set traffic alerts and generate reports. Network behavioral analysis & security monitoring. All-in-one tool. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=126839071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
