| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <455A4DED.8090107@intel.com> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:14:53 -0800 From: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com> To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org> CC: eli@....mellanox.co.il, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-net@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: UDP packets loss Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:15:47 +0200 (IST) > eli@....mellanox.co.il wrote: >> The secod question is how do I make the interrupts be srviced by all CPUs? >> I tried through the procfs as described by IRQ-affinity.txt but I can set >> the mask to 0F bu then I read back and see it is indeed 0f but after a few >> seconds I see it back to 02 (which means only CPU1). > > Most likely, the user level irq balance daemon (irqbalanced) is adjusting it? Having it bounce between cpu's would likely result in a lower performance anyway: you really want it bound to a single CPU to benefit from cache hits on the various involved data structs that are needed to receive the data from hardware, do accounting etc. the userspace irq balance daemon attempts to keep network interrupts on the same cpu for longer periods. The old obsolete kernel-space daemon did exactly the opposite completely destroying network performance. I'm not sure whether this is completely optimal on newer chips like conroe with large shared caches though... Cheers, Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists