netdev - Re: e1000 softirq load balancing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <2114C312-C2A8-487E-B35B-2AE9584AAD16@cs.utexas.edu>
Date:	Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:55:40 -0500
From:	Donald Porter <porterde@...utexas.edu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	linux-net@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000 softirq load balancing

Ok.  That seems very reasonable.

So the behavior I am seeing is that I have 4 NICs, but all of the  
traffic is being funneled to 1-2 softirq handlers, despite the fact  
that the hardware interrupts are being delivered to 4 different CPUs.

Any tips on how to debug this?  Or perhaps there is some configuration  
step I am missing?

Thanks,
Don

On Oct 14, 2008, at 6:51 PM, David Miller wrote:

> From: Don Porter <porterde@...utexas.edu>
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:46:11 -0500
>
>> Would you mind giving me a bit of intuition why I can't have a 1:1
>> mapping of CPUs to NICs?
>
> I didn't say that.
>
> I said that without HW flow seperation support, you can only
> expect N cpus to be busy where N is the number of NICs you
> have.

--
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