[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <l2y412e6f7f1004141950v6db4978azfbf332cf15cf45fa@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:50:24 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, hadi@...erus.ca,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: rps perfomance WAS(Re: rps: question
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Agree 100%, and irqbalance is the existing daemon. It should be used and
> changed if necessary.
>
> Changli, my stronges argument about your patches is that our scheduler
> and memory affinity api (numactl driven) is bitmask oriented, giving the
> same weight to individual cpu or individual memory node.
>
It works with the assumption: the workloads handled in non-schedulable
context are less than the others. If most of work is done in
non-schedulable(softirq) context, scheduler can't keep load balance.
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
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