From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: rps: question Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:42:02 -0500 Message-ID: <1265568122.3688.36.camel@bigi> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, robert@herjulf.net, David Miller To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from mail-qy0-f191.google.com ([209.85.221.191]:40614 "EHLO mail-qy0-f191.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755973Ab0BGSmH (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:42:07 -0500 Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so2775638qyk.23 for ; Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:42:04 -0800 (PST) Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Tom, First off: Kudos on the numbers you are seeing; they are impressive. Do you have any numbers on a forwarding path test? My first impression when i saw the numbers was one of suprise. Back in the days when we tried to split stack processing the way you did(it was one of the experiments on early NAPI), IPIs were _damn_ expensive. What changed in current architecture that makes this more palatable? IPIs are still synchronous AFAIK (and the more IPI receiver there are, the worse the ACK latency). Did you test this across other archs or say 3-4 year old machines? cheers, jamal