[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <65634d660903131724s49009177pdc11005aa76a4b56@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:24:10 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, bhutchings@...arflare.com,
andi@...stfloor.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
jesse.brandeburg@...el.com, shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2: Patch 1/3] net: hand off skb list to other cpu to submit
to upper layer
>> I appreciate this philosophy, but unfortunately I don't have the
>> luxury of working with a NIC that solves these problems. The reality
>> may be that we're trying to squeeze performance out of crappy hardware
>> to scale on multi-core. Left alone we couldn't get the stack to
>> scale, but with these "destable hacks" we've gotten 3X or so
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Spelling.
>
>> improvement in packets per second across both our dumb 1G and 10G
>> NICs
>
> Do these NICs at least support multiqueue?
>
Yes, we are using a 10G NIC that supports multi-queue. The number of
RX queues supported is half the number of cores on our platform, so
that is going to limit the parallelism. With multi-queue turned on we
do see about 4X improvement in pps over just using a single queue;
this is about the same improvement we see using a single queue with
our software steering techniques (this particular device provides the
Toeplitz hash). Enabling HW multi-queue has somewhat higher CPU
utilization though, the extra device interrupt load is not coming for
free. We actually use the HW multi-queue in conjunction with our
software steering to get maximum pps (about 20% more).
--
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