Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] APIC is bad?
From: Mark Knecht (mknecht_AT_controlnet.com)
Date: Fri Jul 16 2004 - 17:28:01 EEST
Florin Andrei wrote:
> I rebuilt the latest Fedora 2 kernel update to enable preempt and
> I'm not yet sure about preempt, but IO-APIC has been acting weird.
> It gave me more interrupts (up to 21 instead of 15), but the devices
> were distributed suboptimal.
> Without APIC, the nvidia module was alone on its own interrupt, the
> EMU10K1 was alone, the ide and eth modules were on separate interrupts,
> etc. Quite ok.
> With IO-APIC, nvidia, EMU10K1 and bttv were on the same interrupt, ide2,
> ide3 and eth0 were on the same interrupt.
> Instead of messing with the kernel again, i just rebooted with the
> "noapic" parameter and now the interrupts are looking good again.
> BTW, anyone has any measurements on how bad it is to put essential
> devices on the same interrupt? (in terms of xruns)
Please note - The 'optimal' numerical assignment of interrupts with
using the APIC model has nothing to do with the older, non-APIC, order.
Please do not confuse the idea that 'interrupt #9 is best' with the
numbers assigned on an APIC system. These are completely different models.
Personally I have done no optimization work on APIC systems and cannot
tell you what would be best. However, TTBOMK, there is no simple way
today to optimize APIC interrupts in a Linux system anyway, so as far as
I can tell you basically take what you get. If you get too many xruns
then I guess you go back to non-APIC mode.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 16 2004 - 17:33:49 EEST