[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1272838104.2173.166.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 00:08:24 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
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
Le dimanche 02 mai 2010 à 23:54 +0200, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 11:45:55PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Tests just prove the reverse.
>
> What do you mean?
>
Test I did this week with Jamal.
We first set a "ee" rps mask, because all NIC interrupts were handled by
CPU0, and Jamal thought like you, that not using cpu4 would give better
performance.
But using "fe" mask gave me a bonus, from ~700.000 pps to ~800.000 pps
CPU : E5450 @3.00GHz
Two quad-core cpus in the machine, tg3 NIC.
With RPS, CPU0 does not a lot of things, just talk with the NIC, bring a
few cache lines per packet and dispatch it to a slave cpu.
> 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.
>
Thats the theory, now in practice I see different results.
Of course, this might be related to hash distribution being different
and more uniform.
I should redo the test with many more flows.
--
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