>> > 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 >> > config option named IRQBALANCE is *disabled*. >> > >> > Can anybody comment on this? >> >> If you have a Pentium 3 based system, by default they'll round robin. >> If you turn on IRQbalance, they won't move until the traffic gets high >> enough load to matter. That's presumably what you're seeing. > > It's an Athlon box that propably has the same behaviour. Just another > question on this topic: with IRQBALANCE enabled, almost all interupts > are routet to CPU0. Lately irq 0 runs on CPU1 and never returns to CPU0 > - is there any obvious reason for that?
If it's not getting interrupts at 1010 per second or so, it won't rotate them, on the grounds it's not worthwhile. M. - 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/
