> > What should be the solution if we really want to slow down IO > > submission to avoid CPU lockup. We don't want only one CPU to keep > > busy for completion. > > > > Any suggestion ? > > > Yup, file a bug with Oracle :) Neil - Thanks for info. I understood to use latest <irqbalance>...that was already attempted. I tried with latest irqbalance and I see expected behavior as long as I provide <exact> or <subset> + <--poliicyscript>. We are planning for the same, but wanted to understand what is latest <irqbalancer> default settings. Is there any reason we are seeing default settings changed from subset to ignore ? > > What you're seeing looks like at least in part a bug with your (very old) > version of irqbalance. I seem to recall fixing more than a few bugs dealing > with affinity masks from the hint files and banned_cpu options. I strongly > suggest that you test with an upstream version of irqbalance and contact > oracle to update their version to something more recent. I see CPU lock up issue does not go if <rq_affinity> is set to 1 in storage stack and if <irqbalance> policy set to <ignore>. With <ignore> policy, I see only limited logic cpu of local NUMA node is busy doing completion. We are still seeing may IO pumping from remote NUMA node. This will cause CPU lockup as <rq_affinity> does not migrate softirq to _exact_ submitter. Not sure what majority of h/w require from <irqbalanace> ? Is it <ignore> kind of policy good choice or <subset> ? ` Kashyap > > Regards > Neil > > > ` Kashyap > > > > _______________________________________________ > > irqbalance mailing list > > irqbalance at lists.infradead.org > > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/irqbalance > >
