[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202212061035074041030@zte.com.cn>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 10:35:07 +0800 (CST)
From: <yang.yang29@....com.cn>
To: <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: <davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <imagedong@...cent.com>,
<kuniyu@...zon.com>, <petrm@...dia.com>, <liu3101@...due.edu>,
<wujianguo@...natelecom.cn>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <tedheadster@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next] net: record times of netdev_budget exhausted
On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 09:53:05 +0800 (CST) kuba@...nel.org wrote:
> time_squeeze is extremely noisy and annoyingly useless,
> we need to understand exactly what you're doing before
> we accept any changes to this core piece of code.
The author of "Replace 2 jiffies with sysctl netdev_budget_usecs
to enable softirq tuning" is Matthew Whitehead, he said this in
git log: Constants used for tuning are generally a bad idea, especially
as hardware changes over time...For example, a very fast machine
might tune this to 1000 microseconds, while my regression testing
486DX-25 needs it to be 4000 microseconds on a nearly idle network
to prevent time_squeeze from being incremented.
And on my systems there are huge packets on the intranet, and we
came accross with lots of time_squeeze. The idea is that, netdev_budget*
are selections between throughput and real-time. If we care throughput
and not care real-time so much, we may want bigger netdev_budget*.
In this scenario, we want to tune netdev_budget* and see their effect
separately.
By the way, if netdev_budget* are useless, should they be deleted?
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists