[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78C9135A3D2ECE4B8162EBDCE82CAD7701B7DE05@nekter>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:01:11 -0400
From: "Leonid Grossman" <Leonid.Grossman@...erion.com>
To: <hadi@...erus.ca>, "Robert Olsson" <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>
Cc: "Zhu Yi" <yi.zhu@...el.com>, "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@...sh.net>,
"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
<peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<jeff@...zik.org>, <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J Hadi Salim [mailto:j.hadi123@...il.com] On Behalf Of jamal
> For the Leonid-NIC (for lack of better name) it may be harder to do
> parallelization on rcv if you use what i said above. But you could
> use a different model on receive - such as create a single netdev and
> with 8 rcv rings and MSI tied on rcv to 8 different CPUs
> Anyways, it is an important discussion to have. ttl.
Call it "IOV-style NIC" :-)
Or something like that, it's a bit too early to talk about full IOV
compliance...
>From what I see in Intel new pci-e 10GbE driver, they have quite a few
of the same attributes, and the category is likely to grow further.
In IOV world, hw channel requirements are pretty brutal; in a nutshell
each channel could be owned by a separate OS instance (and the OS
instances do not even have to be the same type). For a non-virtualized
OS some of these capabilities are not a "must have", but they are/will
be there and Linux may as well take advantage of it.
Leonid
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists