[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49F77108.7060509@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:11:36 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, haoki@...hat.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
davidel@...ilserver.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll
Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> Christoph Lameter a écrit :
>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>> The one that did improved your udpping 'bench' :)
>>>
>>> http://git2.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/davem/net-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=bf368e4e70cd4e0f880923c44e95a4273d725ab4
>> Well yes that is git2p1. The measurements that we took showed not much of
>> an effect as you see.
>>
>
> It depends of coalescing parameters of NIC.
>
> BNX2 interrupts first handle TX completions, then RX events.
> So If by the
>
Sorry for the previous message...
If by the time interrupt comes to the host, TX was handled right before RX event,
the extra wakeup is not a problem, because incoming frame will be delivered into
socket queue right before awaken thread tries to pull it.
On real workloads (many incoming/outgoing frames), then avoiding extra wakeups is
a win, regardless of coalescing parameters and cpu affinities...
On uddpping, I had prior to the patch about 49000 wakeups per second,
and after patch about 26000 wakeups per second (matches number of incoming
udp messages per second)
--
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