On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 15:33 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 12:30 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > > 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? > > > > Ah, I see. So, yeah, here's a v2 of the patch that does "the right" > thing with non-sparse cpus, mulitple queues, and mulitple physical > interfaces. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~sbruno/if_igb.c.txt > > > > > > 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 > > > > Still haven't seen a good reason to bind the queues by default in the > first place. > > Sean >
If there's no objection, I'll commit this in the morning. 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"
