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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20100115.010628.67106329.davem@davemloft.net> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:06:28 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com Cc: krkumar2@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com Subject: Re: ixgbe: [RFC] [PATCH] Fix return of invalid txq From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:00:20 -0800 > 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. I fail to see how this can act substantially better than simply feeding traffic evenly amongst whatever group of queues have been configured. -- 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