Re: parallel networking

2007-10-08 Thread Jeff Garzik
David Miller wrote: From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:22:28 -0400 In terms of overall parallelization, both for TX as well as RX, my gut feeling is that we want to move towards an MSI-X, multi-core friendly model where packets are LIKELY to be sent and received by

Re: parallel networking

2007-10-08 Thread jamal
On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 15:33 -0700, David Miller wrote: > Multiply whatever effect you think you might be able to measure due to > that on your 2 or 4 way system, and multiple it up to 64 cpus or so > for machines I am using. This is where machines are going, and is > going to become the norm. Ye

RE: parallel networking

2007-10-08 Thread Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P
> Multiply whatever effect you think you might be able to > measure due to that on your 2 or 4 way system, and multiple > it up to 64 cpus or so for machines I am using. This is > where machines are going, and is going to become the norm. That along with speeds going to 10 GbE with multiple Tx

Re: parallel networking

2007-10-08 Thread David Miller
From: jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:30:18 -0400 > Very quickly there are no more packets for it to dequeue from the > qdisc or the driver is stoped and it has to get out of there. If you > dont have any interupt tied to a specific cpu then you can have many > cpus enter and l

Re: parallel networking

2007-10-08 Thread jamal
On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 14:11 -0700, David Miller wrote: > The problem is that the packet schedulers want global guarantees > on packet ordering, not flow centric ones. > > That is the issue Jamal is concerned about. indeed, thank you for giving it better wording. > The more I think about it, th

Re: parallel networking

2007-10-08 Thread David Miller
From: Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:22:28 -0400 > In terms of overall parallelization, both for TX as well as RX, my gut > feeling is that we want to move towards an MSI-X, multi-core friendly > model where packets are LIKELY to be sent and received by the same set >

Re: parallel networking (was Re: [PATCH 1/4] [NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock)

2007-10-08 Thread jamal
On Mon, 2007-08-10 at 10:22 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Any chance the NIC hardware could provide that guarantee? If you can get the scheduling/dequeuing to run on one CPU (as we do today) it should work; alternatively you can totaly bypass the qdisc subystem and go direct to the hardware for dev