[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1001080034340.15300@ppwaskie-MOBL2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:36:01 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
From: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH 2/5] ixgbe: Make descriptor ring allocations
NUMA-aware
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:25:26 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time)
>
> > In our hardware (82598 and 82599), the CPU field in the DCA registers is 8
> > bits.
> >
> > The reason I truncated this was to fit these values into the
> > first cacheline of the struct. I also didn't figure we'd see a system
> > that would have 255 NUMA nodes before 10 GbE was something that was on the
> > shelf collecting dust. :-)
>
> The X86 port supports 9 for "NODES_SHIFT", and up to 4096 cpus.
>
> Even when !MAXSMP, the cpu limit is 512.
>
> Don't make the type ungeneric just because some current piece of
> hardware has that limitation. This is how subtle bugs slip into the
> tree, and it makes auditing for such bugs a nightmare.
>
> Thanks.
Understood. Let me see if I can shuffle things around in the struct to
keep my cacheline packed, and not screw with the data type sizes. I'll
respin and have Jeff push a new patch once I get it sorted out.
Thanks for the review Dave,
-PJ
--
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