Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761441AbXHXVcd (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:32:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754442AbXHXVcW (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:32:22 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:34748 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751242AbXHXVcV convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:32:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070824.143220.55503163.davem@davemloft.net> To: ossthema@de.ibm.com Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, raisch@de.ibm.com, themann@de.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, meder@de.ibm.com, tklein@de.ibm.com, stefan.roscher@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <200708241559.17055.ossthema@de.ibm.com> References: <200708241559.17055.ossthema@de.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.1.52 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1511 Lines: 34 From: Jan-Bernd Themann Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:59:16 +0200 > ? ?It would be nice if it is possible to schedule queues to other CPU's, or > ? ?at least to use interrupts to put the queue to another cpu (not nice for > ? ?as you never know which one you will hit). > ? ?I'm not sure how bad the tradeoff would be. Once the per-cpu NAPI poll queues start needing locks, much of the gain will be lost. This is strictly what we want to avoid. We need real facilities for IRQ distribution policies. With that none of this is an issue. This is also a platform specific problem with IRQ behavior, the IRQ distibution scheme you mention would never occur on sparc64 for example. We use a fixed round-robin distribution of interrupts to CPUS there, they don't move. Each scheme has it's advantages, but you want a difference scheme here than what is implemented and the fix is therefore not in the networking :-) Furthermore, most cards that will be using multi-queue will be using hashes on the packet headers to choose the MSI-X interrupt and thus the cpu to be targetted. Those cards will want fixed instead of dynamic interrupt to cpu distribution schemes as well, so your problem is not unique and they'll need the same fix as you do. - 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/