Subject: Re: [RFC v2: Patch 1/3] net: hand off skb list to other cpu to
	submit to upper layer
From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, jesse.brandeburg@intel.com,
       shemminger@vyatta.com, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <877i2wfh1l.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
References: <1236761624.2567.442.camel@ymzhang>
	 <877i2wfh1l.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:16:32 +0800
Message-Id: <1236845792.2567.484.camel@ymzhang>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3250
Lines: 73

On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 12:13 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com> writes:
> 
> > I got some comments. Special thanks to ï»¿Stephen Hemminger for teaching me on
> > what reorder is and some other comments. Also thank other guys who raised comments.
> 
> 
> >
> > v2 has some improvements.
> > 1) Add new sysfs interface /sys/class/net/ethXXX/rx_queueXXX/processing_cpu. Admin
> > could use it to configure the binding between RX and cpu number. So it's convenient
> > for drivers to use the new capability.
> 

> Seems very inconvenient to have to configure this by hand.
A little, but not too much, especially when we consider there is interrupt binding.

>  How about
> auto selecting one that shares the same LLC or somesuch?
There are 2 kinds of LLC sharing here.
1) RX/TX share the LLC;
2) All RX share the LLC of some cpus and TX share the LLC of other cpus.

Item 1) is important, but sometimes item 2) is also important when the sending speed is
very high and huge data is on flight which flushes cpu cache quickly.
It's hard to distinguish the 2 different scenarioes automatically.

>  Passing
> data to anything with the same LLC should be cheap enough.
Yes, when the data isn't huge. My forwarding testing currently could reach at 270M bytes per
second on Nehalem and I wish higher if I could get the latest NICs.


> BTW the standard idea to balance processing over multiple CPUs was to
> use MSI-X to multiple CPUs.
Yes. My method still depends on MSI-X and multi-queue. One difference is I just need less than
CPU_NUM interrupt numbers as there are only some cpus working on packet receiving.

>  and just use the hash function on the
> NIC.
Sorry. I can't understand what the hash function of NIC is. Perhaps NIC hardware has something
like hash function to decide the RX queue number based on SRC/DST?

>  Have you considered this for forwarding too?
Yes. originally, I plan to add a tx_num under the same sysfs directory, so admin could
define that all packets received from a RX queue should be sent out from a specific TX queue.
So struct sk_buff->queue_mapping would be a union of 2 sub-members, rx_num and tx_num. But
﻿sk_buff->queue_mapping is just a u16 which is a small type. We might use the most-significant
bit of ﻿sk_buff->queue_mapping as a flag as rx_num and tx_num wouldn't exist at the
same time.

>  The trick here would
> be to try to avoid reordering inside streams as far as possible,
It's not to solve reorder issue. The start point is 10G NIC is very fast. We need some cpu
work on packet receiving dedicately. If they work on other things, NIC might drop packets
quickly.

The sysfs interface is just to facilitate NIC drivers. If there is no the sysfs interface,
driver developers need implement it with parameters which are painful.

>  but
> since the NIC hash should work on flow basis that should be ok.
Yes, hardware is good at preventing reorder. My method doesn't change the order in software
layer.

Thanks Andi.


--
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/