From: "Chris Friesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:36:21 -0600
> David Miller wrote: > > From: Kevin Diggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:53:46 -0700 > > > >> What does this all mean to my GigE (dual 1.1 GHz 7455s)? Is this > >> thing supposed to be able to spread irq between its cpus? > > Networking interrupts should lock onto a single CPU, unconditionally. > > That's the optimal way to handle networking interrupts, especially > > with multiqueue chips. > > What about something like the Cavium Octeon, where we have 16 cores but a > single core isn't powerful enough to keep up with a gigE device? Hello, we either have hardware that does flow seperation and has multiple RX queues going to multiple MSI-X interrupts or we do flow seperation in software (work in progress patches were posted for that about a month ago, maybe something final will land in 2.6.29) Just moving the interrupt around when not doing flow seperation is as suboptimal as you can possibly get. You'll get out of order packet processing within the same flow, TCP will retransmit when the reordering gets deep enough, and then you're totally screwed performance wise. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
