[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080723.200147.156146319.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 20:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: nhorman@...driver.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] napi: adding an administrative state & priority
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:21:15 -0400
> And what are your thoughts regarding the creation of a napi instance priority
> scheme? I understand your arguments for not disabling napi entirely, but it
> doesn't speak to prioritization. I can still see a benefit to instructing the
> kernel to serve a interface first handling high priority traffic.
The weight assigned to each NAPI instance to some extent already
behaves much like a priority.
We could also do something like, knowing how many NAPI contexts
are scheduled, create a total work budget for an entire pass.
Each "weight" (you say "priority") assigned to the NAPI context
determines how big a slice of the pie that NAPI context gets.
But, two points:
1) True prioritization is the antithesis of what NAPI is trying
to achieve. It wants fairness and to avoid starvation.
2) %99.999999 of the time only a single NAPI context is scheduled
on a cpu at a time, making this whole idea quite moot in my
opinion :-)
--
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