[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272828143.2173.150.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 21:22:23 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hadi@...erus.ca,
xiaosuo@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] net: batch skb dequeueing from softnet
input_pkt_queue
Le dimanche 02 mai 2010 à 10:54 -0700, Arjan van de Ven a écrit :
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 16:27:28 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > C2 latency seems to be 64 (us ?), while C1 seems to be 1
>
> the processor_idle module has a "latency_factor" module parameter.
> The default is 2, but sometimes people think 6 is a better value...
> .. any chance you can try that value ?
>
I tried 6 and 20, nothing changed ;(
> Also, I'm starting to wonder if Andi's patch to use io_schedule() needs
> to be replaced with a net_schedule() kind of thing. The cpuidle code
> currently has a weight factor for IO (based on measuring/experiments),
> and maybe networking really needs another factor... so just having a
> parallel concept with a different weight could be the right answer for
> that.
>
But a task blocked on disk IO is probably blocked for a small amount of
time, while on network, it can be for a long time. I am not sure its the
right metric.
I was expecting something based on recent history.
Say if we have 20.000 wakeups per second, most likely we should not
enter C2/C3 states...
>
> we'll fix powertop to report the marketing name soon.
>
>
Ah, I see, thanks :)
--
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