irqbalance problem on Oracle X5-2
mohsinrzaidi at gmail.com
Fri Nov 13 10:39:20 PST 2015
Thanks for your reply, Neil.
Yes, when I manually set the irq affinity to avoid #18, it works.
I just downloaded and applied the latest irqbalance code, but it's
showing the same behavior.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Neil Horman <nhorman at tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 03:59:46PM -0500, Mohsin Zaidi wrote:
>> We’ve run into an irqbalance CPU banning issue that seems to be
>> present in version 1.0.4 as well as in newer versions 1.0.7 and 1.0.9.
>> On an Oracle X5-2 with 72 cores, irqbalance keeps concentrating IRQs
>> from one interface (eth03) (the active slave in a bonded pair running
>> network traffic) on CPU 18/37 (more on #18), even though all CPUs but
>> 1/37 have been banned from IRQ processing. We’re seeing this on
>> multiple X5-2s. The interrupts are never directed to CPU 1. This does
>> not seem to be a problem with other 32 core servers we have.
>> I’ve attached the top CPU list, /proc/interrupts for eth03, irqbalance
>> debug output, smp_affinity for eth03 IRQs (548-611), and the hardware
>> Any help would be appreciated. Please let me know if I can provide any
>> additional information.
> A few initial questions
> Are you able to set irq affinity manually on these systems? And are you able to
> see those affinities take effect? I ask because the smp_affinity output you
> sent me makes it look like writes to that file for a given interrupt aren't
> getting picked up, and so the hardware is actually deciding where to steer
> Have you tried using an upstream version of irqbalance? I ask because commit
> f1bf15ed7ea63a04c76da033b78f8ffc806d4517, which came out after 1.0.9 fixes a
> problem in which the --banirq option stopped working on a irq db reparsing.
More information about the irqbalance