On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:57:09PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Mark CONFIG_IRQBALANCE as not recommended any more. It eats too much
> power, and better solutions are available in userspace.
What about additionally a printk() during init and a
feature-removal-schedule.txt entry scheduling removal
one year from now?
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ---
> commit 2665f7971b5b97830b028308553a78a95c131988
> tree e1782cceebfb5900373469c0043d113de88f861f
> parent f5085f6ea1c5771708c44a4a42ee217e760ff4a0
> author Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:56:15 +0200
> committer Pavel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:56:15 +0200
>
> arch/i386/Kconfig | 9 ++++++---
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/i386/Kconfig b/arch/i386/Kconfig
> index eba2d88..10f3c38 100644
> --- a/arch/i386/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/i386/Kconfig
> @@ -779,10 +779,13 @@ config EFI
> config IRQBALANCE
> bool "Enable kernel irq balancing"
If you want people to notice it's deprecated you should add a
" (DEPRECATED)" to the kconfig prompt.
> depends on SMP && X86_IO_APIC
> - default y
> + default n
Please drop the "default n", it has no effect.
> help
> - The default yes will allow the kernel to do irq load balancing.
> - Saying no will keep the kernel from doing irq load balancing.
> + Saying yes will allow the kernel to do irq load balancing;
> + but it generates too many CPU wakeups, eating power, and
> + is better done in userspace.
> +
> + Say N.
>
> # turning this on wastes a bunch of space.
> # Summit needs it only when NUMA is on
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
