Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757401AbYH1U3w (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755052AbYH1U3h (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:37 -0400 Received: from g4t0017.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.20]:43650 "EHLO g4t0017.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753406AbYH1U3g (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:36 -0400 Message-ID: <48B70AAA.7010504@hp.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:29:30 -0700 From: Rick Jones User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; HP-UX 9000/785; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060601 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Miller CC: jmalicki@metacarta.com, andi@firstfloor.org, johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, dada1@cosmosbay.com, denys@visp.net.lb, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juhlenko@akamai.com, sammy@sammy.net Subject: Re: loaded router, excessive getnstimeofday in oprofile References: <21915755.1327801219904892242.JavaMail.root@ouachita> <48B6E7D0.5070307@hp.com> <20080828.124251.149964287.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20080828.124251.149964287.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1307 Lines: 28 > > The issue is the ordering of processing the requests. > > So if request A arrived on interface 1 before request B arrived on > interface 2, the trade described in A should be performed before the > one in B. > > This is not "arcance" as you seem to suppose it might be, but rather > pretty clear fair handling or requests sent between trading desks. Has the request "hit the trading system" when it hits the NIC, or when it hits the application executing the trade? If the SEC calls for when it hits the NIC, then none of what is done today is really accurate/correct and one would need to start using NIC HW timestamps, synchronized with the host and the other NICs in the system no? The way things are today, there really isn't much guarantee that hitting NIC 1 before NIC 2 will result in a driver-generated timestamp for the NIC 1 packet which is before the driver-generated timestamp for the NIC 2 packet. It will be luck of the interrupt coalescing interaction with other traffic on the NIC and/or polling out of NAPI right? rick jones -- 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/