netdev - Re: [RFC] bnx2x: Insane RX rings

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C8A52BE.9040105@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:46:06 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	eilong@...adcom.com
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, "ole@....pl" <ole@....pl>,
	"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bnx2x: Insane RX rings

>>>I think simply that the RX queue size should be scaled by the number
>>>of queues we have.
> 
> 
> There are few factors that can be considered when scaling the ring
> sizes:
> - Number of queues per device
> - Number of devices
> - Available amount of memory
> - Others...
 >
> I'm thinking about adding a factor only according to the number of
> queues - this will still cause issues for systems with many ports. Does
> that sound reasonable or not enough? Do you think the number of devices
> or even the amount of free memory should be considered?

At one level we are talking about horses and barn doors - for example, the 
minimum memory requirements for ProLiants have already been set (and 
communicated for some time) taking memory usage of their LOMs (Lan On 
Motherboard) into account.

rick jones
--
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