[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1263546020.2038.7.camel@localhost>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:00:20 -0800
From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "krkumar2@...ibm.com" <krkumar2@...ibm.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Subject: Re: ixgbe: [RFC] [PATCH] Fix return of invalid txq
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 00:44 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
> Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:58:17 -0800
>
> > I've been trying to find time to add something like igb has, with a
> > tiny Tx lookup table that maps CPUs into a smaller set of Tx queues.
>
> Why do you need "tables"? Just modulo the it, with whatever
> optimizations you can come up with.
>
> Or do we not have enough data references in the TX path already?
> :-/
>
> I would suggest getting rid of the table in IGB too.
>
> Either "tables" are a good idea (I think they definitely are not)
> or they are not. And whatever the decision is we should do it
> consistently. net/core/dev.c doesn't use tables, it does the
> subtraction modulo thing like Krishna does.
What I've been thinking of is more for the NUMA allocations per port.
If we have, say 2 sockets, 8 cores a piece, then we have 16 CPUs. If we
assign a port to socket 0, I think the best use of resources is to
allocate 8 Rx/Tx queues, one per core in that socket. If an application
comes from the other socket, we can have a table to map the other 8
cores from that socket into the 8 queues, instead of piling them all
into one of the Tx queues.
Cheers,
-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