[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271275130.16881.1749.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:58:50 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question
Le mercredi 14 avril 2010 à 12:44 -0700, Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:53:42 -0400
> jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. So to enumerate, the benefits come in if:
> > a) you have many processors
> > b) you have single-queue nic
> > c) at sub-threshold traffic you dont care about a little latency
>
> There probably needs to be better autotuning for this, there is no reason
> that RPS to be steering packets unless the queue is getting backed up.
> Some kind of high / low water mark mechanism is needed.
>
> RPS might also interact with the core turbo boost functionality on Intel chips.
> Newer chips will make a single core faster if other core can be kept idle.
>
>
This was discussed a while ago, and Out Of Order packet delivery was the
thing that frightened us a bit.
Every time we change RPS to be on or off, we might have some extra
noise. Maybe we already have this problem with irqbalance ?
--
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