All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:43:07 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <65634d660904090943lf273d9cg92be105acef3e6af@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090408.161515.40986410.davem@davemloft.net>

>>> -extern int          netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb);
>>> +extern int            __netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb);
>>> +
>>> +static inline int netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>>> +{
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_SOFTRPS
>>> +    return netif_rx(skb);
>>> +#else
>>> +    return __netif_receive_skb(skb);
>>> +#endif
>>> +}
>>
>> Ugh, this forces all devices receiving back into a single backlog
>> queue.
>
> Yes, it basically turns off NAPI.
>

NAPI is still useful, but it does take a higher packet load before
polling kicks in.  I believe this is similarly true for HW multi
queue, and could actually be worse depending on the number of queues
traffic is being split across (in my bnx2x experiment 16 core AMD with
16 queues, I was seeing around 300K interrupts per second, no benefit
from NAPI).

The bimodal behavior between polling and non-polling states does give
us fits.  I looked at the parked mode idea, but the latency hit seems
too high.  We've considered holding the interface in polling state for
longer periods of time, maybe this could trade off CPU cycles (on the
core taking interrupts) for lower latency and higher throughput.

  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-09 16:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-08 22:48 [PATCH] Software receive packet steering Tom Herbert
2009-04-08 23:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-08 23:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-08 23:15   ` David Miller
2009-04-09 16:43     ` Tom Herbert [this message]
2009-04-09 18:23       ` Ben Hutchings
2009-04-09 21:17       ` David Miller
2009-04-09  0:36 ` David Miller
2009-04-09  4:40   ` Tom Herbert
2009-04-09  5:24     ` David Miller
2009-04-20 10:32 ` Andi Kleen
2009-04-20 10:46   ` David Miller
2009-04-21  3:26   ` Tom Herbert
2009-04-21  9:48     ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-21 15:46       ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-21 18:52         ` Tom Herbert
2009-04-22  9:21           ` David Miller
2009-04-22 15:46             ` Tom Herbert
2009-04-22 18:49             ` Rick Jones
2009-04-22 20:44             ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2009-04-23  6:58               ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-23  7:25                 ` David Miller
2009-04-23  7:29                   ` Jens Axboe
2009-04-23  9:12               ` Jens Laas
2009-04-22 14:33         ` Martin Josefsson
2009-04-23  7:34           ` David Miller

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=65634d660904090943lf273d9cg92be105acef3e6af@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=therbert@google.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shemminger@vyatta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.