netdev - MSI-X and interrupt affinity with Emulex be2net

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL8zT=g_Vc-r-wZphGhyuDcBmSLsuSRWgoSnSQBS0zS=_3xRVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:33:39 +0100
From:	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@...il.com>
To:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: MSI-X and interrupt affinity with Emulex be2net

Hi all,

I am using a be2net ethernet interface, and am on the master git
repository, so the latest kernel available.
I have MSI-X enabled of course, and as far as I can tell, all
interrupts are bound to CPU0.
I have several process and threads which use quite all the ethernet
interfaces I have, and I reach 7180 IRQs/sec on CPU0.

I have several questions regarding this :
- I thought MSI-X would help in balancing IRQs on different CPUs
- Is this a good idea anyway to specify which IRQ is bound to which
CPU manually, if I set the process using the IRQ to the same CPU ?
- How can I measure performance impact (using perf, probably) of no
balancing (ie, all on CPU0) versus balancing like explained above ?

Thanks for your advice !
JM
--
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