> On May 28, 2015 at 12:26 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 08:45 -0700, John Fastabend wrote: > > If your experimenting one thing you could do is create many > > ifb devices and load balance across them from tc. I'm not > > sure if this would be practical in your setup or not but might > > be worth trying. > > > > One thing I've been debating adding is the ability to match > > on current cpu_id in tc which would allow you to load balance by > > cpu. I could send you a patch if you wanted to test it. I would > > expect this to help somewhat with 'single queue' issue but sorry > > haven't had time yet to test it out myself. > > It seems John uses a single 1Gbps flow, so only one cpu would receive > NIC interrupts. > > The only way he could get better results would be to schedule IFB work > on another core. > > (Assuming one cpu is 100% busy servicing NIC + IFB, but I really doubt > it...) > > > Our initial testing has been single flow but the ultimate purpose is processing real time video in a complex application which ingests associated meta data, post to consumer facing cloud, does reporting back - so lots of different traffics with very different demands - a perfect tc environment.
CPU utilization is remarkably light. Every once in a while, we see a single CPU about 50% utilized with si. Thanks, all - John -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
