Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I don't know why it acts that way. Maybe someone else will jump in with more info.
But why do you want it to not act that way?
1) Servicing interrupts may be a small enough fraction of any one core's total workload that it doesn't really matter which core does it.
2) If servicing interrupts is a significant load then you get better cache behavior and better total system throughput by having all that on one core rather than distributed.
At worst, you might need to take it into account when/if you restrict certain processes to specific cores. Core zero will have worse application level performance because of the extra cache misses it experiences on return from each interrupt. If processes are randomly assigned to cores, the fact that one core is slower will average out to less total impact than if the extra cache misses were increased by distributing them over more cores. If processes are non randomly distributed to cores then the fact that one core is slower than the others is just a factor to take into account.
OK. I guess i didn't know what i was talking about and asked the wrong questions.
What I wanted to say is why are all the core's not being used in interrupt 169?
As i understand it, we are able to configure smp_affinity to control which cores handle what devices. But in the newer linux, we have irqbalance. Does that mean we do not have to mess about with smp affinity ?