Herbert Xu wrote:Is this a blind guess, or is there real world testing across multiple setups behind this answer? Consider a 2-package, quad-core system with 3 userland threads actively performing network communication, plus periodic, low levels of network activity from OS utilities (such as nightly 'yum upgrade'). That is essentially an under-utilized 8-CPU system. For such a case, it seems like a power win to idle or power down a few cores, or maybe even an entire package. Efficient power usage means scaling _down_ when activity decreases. A blind "distribute network activity across all CPUs" policy does not appear to be responsive to that type of situation. Same question: blind guess, or do you have numbers? Consider two competing CPU hogs: a kernel with tons of netfilter tables and rules, plus an application that uses a lot of CPU. Can you not reach a threshold where it makes more sense to split kernel and userland work onto different CPUs? That seems to presume it is impossible to reprogram the NIC RX queue selection rules? If you can add a new 'flow' to a NIC hardware RX queue, surely you can imagine a remove + add operation for a migrated 'flow'... and thus, at least on the NIC hardware level, flows can follow processes. Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Greg KH | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Tomasz Kłoczko | Is it time for remove (crap) ALSA from kernel tree ? |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Paweł Staszewski | iproute2 action/policer question |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
