[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <65634d660911241151q4d7522c0nf9c2e4667c333185@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:51:39 -0800
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: NUMA and multiQ interation
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:06 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:04:41 -0800
>
>> What is the expected interaction here, and would these results be
>> typical? If so, would this warrant the need to associate each RX
>> queue to a numa node, instead of just the device?
>
> Yes we are fully aware of this and discussed it at netconf this year, see
> in particular:
>
> http://vger.kernel.org/netconf2009_slides/netconf2009_numa_discussion.odp
>
> PJ is also currently trying to pass upstream some changes such that these
> NUMA allocation bits can be exported to userspace and thus irqbalanced
> can pick IRQ targetting more intelligently when a driver allocates per-queue
> memory resources on different NUMA nodes. The thread discussing this has
> been going active for the past few days, maybe you missed it.
>
I saw that thread, and it looks compelling. But we have applications
that are network bound such that we want to use multiple queues across
multiple nodes for scaling-- and trying keep all queues on the same
node does not scale very well. Maybe ignoring NUMA allocation could
be a fall-back mode in a dynamic allocation with heavy load?
Tom
--
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