On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 06:32 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > CPU IDs are not guaranteed to be dense. However, you can use > CPU_FIRST() and > CPU_NEXT() with your static global instead. > Ah, does CPU_NEXT() reset to 0 when it reaches the end of its list of CPUs?
> OTOH, if igb were to just leave the interrupts alone instead of > binding them > by hand, they would get round-robin assigned among available cores > already. I > think in this case the best approach might be to add a tunable to > disable > igb's manual binding and instead let the default system round-robin > be > preserved. also, yes. Why *are* we binding to CPUs in the first place? Are we afraid that the scheduler won't do the right thing and we're trying to work around some unknown performance issue ? Sean _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
