[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004302150380.2951@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:58:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: shemminger@...tta.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
ak@...goyle.fritz.box, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking
Dave,
On Fri, 30 Apr 2010, David Miller wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:19:36 +0200 (CEST)
>
> > Aside of that I seriously doubt that you can do networking w/o time
> > and timers.
>
> You're right that we need timestamps and the like.
>
> But only if we actually process the packets on these restricted cpus :-)
>
> If we use RPS and farm out all packets to other cpus, ie. just doing
> the driver work and the remote cpu dispatch on these "offline" cpus,
> it is doable.
>
> Then we can do cool tricks like having the cpu spin on a mwait() on the
> network device's status descriptor in memory.
>
> In any event I agree with you, it's a cool idea at best, and likely
> not really practical.
Well, it might be worth to experiment with that once we get the basic
infrastructure in place to "isolate" cores under full kernel control.
It's not too hard to solve the problems, but it seems nobody has a
free time slot to tackle them.
Thanks
tglx
--
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