[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271742351.3845.106.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:45:51 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rps: send IPIs ASAP
Le lundi 19 avril 2010 à 22:15 -0700, Tom Herbert a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> wrote:
> > rps: send IPIs ASAP
> >
> > In order to reduce latency, we'd better send IPIs ASAP to schedule the
> > corresponding NAPIs.
> >
> A design point of RPS is that we generate at most one IPI per CPU per
> device interrupt, which at least offers some predictable coalescing.
> With your changes, we would get at most one IPI per packet-- that
> could represent a lot more of them. Did you test this to see what the
> impact is in this regard?
>
I agree with you Tom. Coalescing IPI is probably better.
If the receiver CPU got a single packet in its RX handling, latency will
be the same anyway.
If the receiver CPU got many packets, chance is high we are in a stress
situation, and coalescing is a win in this case.
I am currently testing a patch to call net_rps_action() at the beginning
of process_backlog() (if we have a non null ipi_rps_list pointer)
Will post a patch with bench results
--
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