netdev - Re: [net-next 03/10] ixgbe: Drop the TX work limit and instead just leave it to budget

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: <4E52920F.7060603@intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Aug 2011 10:29:51 -0700
From:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 03/10] ixgbe: Drop the TX work limit and instead just
 leave it to budget

On 08/22/2011 09:46 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 09:30 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>> On 08/21/2011 07:01 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 00:29 -0700, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>>>> From: Alexander Duyck<alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> This change makes it so that the TX work limit is now obsolete.  Instead of
>>>> using it we can instead rely on the NAPI budget for the number of packets
>>>> we should clean per interrupt.  The advantage to this approach is that it
>>>> results in a much more balanced work flow since the same number of RX and
>>>> TX packets should be cleaned per interrupts.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> This seems kind of sensible, but it's not how Dave has been recommending
>>> people to account for TX work in NAPI.
>>>
>>> Ben.
>>>
>> I wasn't aware there was a recommended approach.  Could you tell me more
>> about it?
> If a whole TX ring is cleaned then consider the budget spent; otherwise
> don't count it.
>
> Ben.

The only problem I was seeing with that was that in certain cases it 
seemed like the TX cleanup could consume enough CPU time to cause pretty 
significant delays in processing the RX cleanup.  This in turn was 
causing single queue bi-directional routing tests to come out pretty 
unbalanced since what seemed to happen is that one CPUs RX work would 
overwhelm the other CPU with the TX processing resulting in an 
unbalanced flow that was something like a 60/40 split between the 
upstream and downstream throughput.

Thanks,

Alex
--
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