netdev - Re: ixgbe: [RFC] [PATCH] Fix return of invalid txq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:06:28 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com
Cc:	krkumar2@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com
Subject: Re: ixgbe: [RFC] [PATCH] Fix return of invalid txq

From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:00:20 -0800

> What I've been thinking of is more for the NUMA allocations per port.
> If we have, say 2 sockets, 8 cores a piece, then we have 16 CPUs.  If we
> assign a port to socket 0, I think the best use of resources is to
> allocate 8 Rx/Tx queues, one per core in that socket.  If an application
> comes from the other socket, we can have a table to map the other 8
> cores from that socket into the 8 queues, instead of piling them all
> into one of the Tx queues.

I fail to see how this can act substantially better than simply
feeding traffic evenly amongst whatever group of queues have
been configured.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html