Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:32:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:32:25 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:48044 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:32:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20021015.213102.80213000.davem@redhat.com> To: neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au Cc: taka@valinux.co.jp, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <15788.57476.858253.961941@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> References: <15786.23306.84580.323313@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20021014.210144.74732842.taka@valinux.co.jp> <15788.57476.858253.961941@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> X-FalunGong: Information control. X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 898 Lines: 22 From: Neil Brown Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:44:04 +1000 Presumably on a sufficiently large SMP machine that this became an issue, there would be multiple NICs. Maybe it would make sense to have one udp socket for each NIC. Would that make sense? or work? It feels to me to be cleaner than one for each CPU. Doesn't make much sense. Usually we are talking via one IP address, and thus over one device. It could be using multiple NICs via BONDING, but that would be transparent to anything at the socket level. Really, I think there is real value to making the socket per-cpu even on a 2 or 4 way system. - 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/