From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 18 13:13:58 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1624716A4DF; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:13:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D662A43D81; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:13:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.138] (helo=anti-virus01-09) by smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G2pOY-0006Tr-4N; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:13:50 +0100 Received: from [82.41.34.175] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out6.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G2pOW-0001P5-SE; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:13:48 +0100 Message-ID: <44BCDE8C.9000003@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:13:48 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060515 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <44BB9D21.3010400@dial.pipex.com> <200607171128.00303.jhb@freebsd.org> <44BBBDA6.4010209@dial.pipex.com> <200607171326.17133.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200607171326.17133.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Interrupts question] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:13:58 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: >>>Interrupt storm detected on "irq18: uhci2"; throttling interrupt source >>> >>> >>which ties to the disk interrupt. Will that be slowing things down? >>Would increasing the storm threshold help (especially disk >>performance)? Guess I'm looking for any mitigation that might be possible. >> >> >> > >There's no easy answer on this. You'll have to run your own benchmarks. If >you don't need USB, then you may just want to leave it out of your kernel >which might help some. > > > OK, thanks for the info and suggestions. Regrettably, leaving out USB isn't an option for us. I'll schedule some benchmarking for all that ample free time I have :-) Best, --Alex