From: Andrew Theurer Subject: Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36 Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:04:27 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <200210161004.27314.habanero@us.ibm.com> References: <15786.23306.84580.323313@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <15788.57476.858253.961941@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> <20021015.213102.80213000.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: taka@valinux.co.jp, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" , neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au In-Reply-To: <20021015.213102.80213000.davem@redhat.com> List-ID: On Tuesday 15 October 2002 11:31 pm, David S. Miller wrote: > 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. I am trying my best today to get a 4 way system up and running for this test. IMO, per cpu is best.. with just one socket, I seriously could not get over 33% cpu utilization on a 4 way (back in April). With TCP, I could max it out. I'll update later today hopefully with some promising results. -Andrew