[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1221926529.1343.140.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:02:09 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure.
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 08:45 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:29:21 -0700
> >
> > > Jen's, as stated, has block layer uses for this. I intend to use
> > > this for receive side flow seperation on non-multiqueue network
> > > cards. And Steffen Klassert has a set of IPSEC parallelization
> > > changes that can very likely make use of this.
> >
> > What's the benefit that you (or Jens) sees from migrating softirqs
> > from specific cpu's to others?
>
> it means you do all the processing on the CPU that submitted the IO in
> the first place, and likely still has the various metadata pieces in
> its CPU cache (or at least you know you won't need to bounce them over)
In the case of networking and block I would think a lot of the softirq
activity is asserted from userspace.. Maybe the scheduler shouldn't be
migrating these tasks, or could take this softirq activity into
account ..
Daniel
--
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