|
On Wed, 14 May 2003, Peter Mueller wrote:
>
> I remember quite a few discussions indicating SMP was not `efficient` with
> LVS due to spinlocks & such. The end result was that it was better to
> compile without SMP. I'm not sure why you aren't seeing utilization on both
> CPUs.
>
Well, the major LVS processing is run inside the softirqs in the kernel
2.4. The softirqs (even the same) can run parallely on the two CPUs or
more inside the kernel 2.4. So, the LVS in the kernel 2.4 should take
advantage of SMP. We spent a lot of efforts keeping the locking
granularity of LVS small too.
As for Dusten's problem, I am not sure why one CPU is 80% idle and the
other is always 100% idle. From the mpstat output, almost all the
interrupts go to the first CPU. Is it possible that 20% CPU cycles have
been spent handling interrupts at the first CPU?
Regards,
Wensong
|
