[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230324104733.571466bc@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 10:47:33 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net/core: add optional threading for backlog
processing
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 18:35:00 +0100 Felix Fietkau wrote:
> I'm primarily testing this on routers with 2 or 4 CPUs and limited
> processing power, handling routing/NAT. RPS is typically needed to
> properly distribute the load across all available CPUs. When there is
> only a small number of flows that are pushing a lot of traffic, a static
> RPS assignment often leaves some CPUs idle, whereas others become a
> bottleneck by being fully loaded. Threaded NAPI reduces this a bit, but
> CPUs can become bottlenecked and fully loaded by a NAPI thread alone.
The NAPI thread becomes a bottleneck with RPS enabled?
> Making backlog processing threaded helps split up the processing work
> even more and distribute it onto remaining idle CPUs.
You'd want to have both threaded NAPI and threaded backlog enabled?
> It can basically be used to make RPS a bit more dynamic and
> configurable, because you can assign multiple backlog threads to a set
> of CPUs and selectively steer packets from specific devices / rx queues
Can you give an example?
With the 4 CPU example, in case 2 queues are very busy - you're trying
to make sure that the RPS does not end up landing on the same CPU as
the other busy queue?
> to them and allow the scheduler to take care of the rest.
You trust the scheduler much more than I do, I think :)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists