[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sfeolppw.ffs@tglx>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2023 11:40:11 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Wangyang Guo <wangyang.guo@...el.com>,
Arjan van De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] net, refcount: Address dst_entry reference count
scalability issues
On Tue, Feb 28 2023 at 19:17, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> FWIW looks good to me, especially the refcount part.
> We do see 10% of jitter in microbenchmarks due to random cache
> effects, so forgive the questioning.
Yes, those things are hard to measure.
> But again, the refcount seems like an obvious win to my noob eyes.
>
> While I have you it would be remiss of me not to mention my ksoftirq
> change which makes a large difference in production workloads:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221222221244.1290833-3-kuba@kernel.org/
Let me find this again.
> Is Peter's "rework" of softirq going in for 6.3?
Not that I'm aware of. That had a few loose ends and got lost in space
AFAICT.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists