[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1298984609.3284.98.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:03:29 +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 19:53 +0800, Herbert Xu a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:45:09PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > CPU 11 handles all TX completions : Its a potential bottleneck.
> >
> > I might ressurect XPS patch ;)
>
> Actually this has been my gripe all along with our TX multiqueue
> support. We should not decide the queue based on the socket, but
> on the current CPU.
>
> We already do the right thing for forwarded packets because there
> is no socket to latch onto, we just need to fix it for locally
> generated traffic.
>
I believe its now done properly (in net-next-2.6) with commit
4f57c087de9b46182 (net: implement mechanism for HW based QOS)
> The odd packet reordering each time your scheduler decides to
> migrate the process isn't a big deal IMHO. If your scheduler
> is constantly moving things you've got bigger problems to worry
> about.
Well, BENET has one TX queue anyway...
--
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