On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 13:26 +0200, Robert Iakobashvili wrote: > > > Am I understanding you correctly that you want to spread the load of the > > networking IRQ roughly equally over 2 cpus (or cores or ..)? > > Yes, 4 cores. > > > If so, that is very very suboptimal, especially for networking (since > > suddenly a lot of packet processing gets to deal with out of order > > receives and cross-cpu reassembly). > > Agree. Unfortunately, we have a flow of small RTP packets with heavy > processing and both Rx and Tx component on a single network card. > The application is not too much sensitive to the out of order, etc. > Thus, there 3 cores are actually doing nothing, whereas the CPU0 > is overloaded, preventing system CPU scaling.
in principle the actual work should still be spread over the cores; unless you do everything in kernel space that is.. > Agree, that providing CPU affinity for a network interrupt is a rather > reasonable default. > However, should a chipset manufacture take from us the very freedom of > tuning, freedom of choice? it can still be done using the TPR (Thread Priority Register) of the APIC. It's just... not there in Linux (other OSes do use this). -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
