[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20151205.172437.1660871557891874317.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:24:37 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: mw@...ihalf.com
Cc: gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com,
jason@...edaemon.net, andrew@...n.ch,
sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com,
ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, alior@...vell.com,
nadavh@...vell.com, simon.guinot@...uanux.org,
maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com,
boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
w@....eu, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] net: mvneta: Spread out the TX queues
management on all CPUs
From: Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:14:31 +0100
> Hi Gregory,
>
>> @@ -1824,13 +1835,16 @@ error:
>> static int mvneta_tx(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
>> {
>> struct mvneta_port *pp = netdev_priv(dev);
>> - u16 txq_id = skb_get_queue_mapping(skb);
>> + u16 txq_id = smp_processor_id() % txq_number;
>
> I think it may be ok to bind TXQs to different CPUs, but I don't think
> that replacing skb_get_queue_mapping by in fact smp_processor_id() is
> the best idea. This way you use only 2 TXQs on A385 and 4 TXQs on AXP.
> There are HW mechanisms like WRR or EJP that provide balancing for
> egress, so let's better keep all 8.
Also it is possible for other parts of the stack to set the SKB queue
mapping and you must respect that setting rather than override it.
--
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