Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935157Ab3FSTXz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:23:55 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]:36687 "EHLO mail-lb0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935068Ab3FSTXx (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:23:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1371623653.3252.268.camel@edumazet-glaptop> References: <1371620452-49349-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1371620452-49349-4-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1371623653.3252.268.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:16:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [net-next rfc 3/3] tuntap: increase the max queues to 16 From: Jerry Chu To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Jason Wang , David Miller , Eric Dumazet , mst@redhat.com, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 866 Lines: 28 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 13:40 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> Since we've reduce the size of tun_struct and use flex array to allocate netdev >> queues, it's safe for us to increase the limit of queues in tuntap. > > Its already safe to increase max queues to 16, without your patches 1 & > 2 How about 32? Will kmem size be an issue? As others have pointed out it's best to allocate one queue per CPU (virtual or real) and > 16 CPU machines are very common. (I only asked for 16 initially out of concern for kmem size.) Thanks, Jerry > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/