On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 02:08 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 00:59 -0800, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:

quoted

quoted

This all sounds backwards.. we've got a perfectly functional interface
for affinity -- which people object to being used for some reason. So
you add another interface on top, and that is ok?

But it's not functional.  If I set the affinity in smp_affinity, then
irqbalance will override it 10 seconds later. 

And here I was thinking the kernel round-robins IRQ delivery on the mask
specified there. Are you talking about some daft userspace thing that
writes into the irq smp_affinity to effect irq balancing?

Yep.  That's exactly what irqbalance does.

Cheers,
-PJ