[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100502215450.GC2673@gargoyle.fritz.box>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 23:54:50 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hadi@...erus.ca,
xiaosuo@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, shemminger@...tta.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org, arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] net: batch skb dequeueing from softnet
input_pkt_queue
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 11:45:55PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le dimanche 02 mai 2010 à 23:25 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
>
> > It's pointless to send an IPI to your thread sibling for this.
> > Everything it could do you can do yourself too with the same performance.
> >
> > -Andi
>
> Amen
That is in terms of cache locality.
>
> Tests just prove the reverse.
What do you mean?
>
> I have some collegues that disable HyperThreading for exact same
> reasons. I wonder why Intel designed HT. Should be marketing I guess.
HT (especially Nehalem HT) is useful for a wide range of workloads.
Just handling network interrupts for its thread sibling is not one of them.
-Andi
--
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