[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298987566.3284.105.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:52:46 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rick.jones2@...com,
therbert@...gle.com, wsommerfeld@...gle.com,
daniel.baluta@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SO_REUSEPORT - can it be done in kernel?
Le mardi 01 mars 2011 à 21:18 +0800, Herbert Xu a écrit :
> Interesting. So I wonder which lock is showing up at the top
> of the profile with a single socket then. As it's definitely
> going away with multiple sockets, that means it's not the TX
> queue lock.
>
This CPU also runs named process, so this is socket lock and receive
queue lock.
Named threads all do : recvmsg()/sendmsg() in a loop, so all are waiting
a frame before doing some work.
Because of single receive queue, extra context switches occur (all
threads but one have to sleep again per query)
For about 80 kqps (standard linux-2.6 kernel, no patches), I have
following vmstat output
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa
4 1 0 2184048 63496 1595056 0 0 0 2060 64592 294528 19 11 67 4
6 1 0 2184040 63496 1595056 0 0 0 1960 64686 293928 19 11 66 4
3 1 0 2184040 63496 1595056 0 0 0 2344 64556 294268 20 11 66 4
4 1 0 2184040 63496 1595056 0 0 0 2400 64626 293859 19 11 67 4
--
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