Mark Ryden wrote:
Hello,
I have a machine with 2 dual core CPUs. This machine runs Fedora Core 6.
I have two Intel e1000 GigaBit network cards on this machine; I use
bonding so
that the machine assigns the same IP address to both NICs ;
It seems to me that bonding is configured OK, bacuse when running:
"cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0"
I get:
...
Permanent HW addr: ....
(And the Permanent HW addr is diffenet in these two entries).
I send a large amount of packets to this machine (more than 20,000 in
a second).
Well, 20K a second is large in some contexts, but not in others :)
cat /proc/interrupts shops something like this:
CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
50: 3359337 0 0 0 PCI-MSI eth0
58: 49 3396136 0 0 PCI-MSI eth1
CPU0 and CPU1 are of the first CPU as far as I understand ; so this
means as far as I understand that the second CPU (which has CPU3 and
CPU4) does not handle interrupts of the arrived packets; Can I
somehow change it so the second
CPU will also handle network interrupts of receiving packets on the
nic ?
Actually, those could be different chips - it depends on the CPUs I
think, and I suppose the BIOS/OS. On a Woodcrest system with which I've
been playing, CPUs 0 and 2 appear to be on the same die, then 1 and
three. I ass-u-me-d the numbering was that way to get maximum
processor cache when saying "numcpu=N" for something less than the
number of cores in the system.
NUMA considerations might come into play if this is Opteron (well, any
NUMA system really - larger IA64's, certain SPARC and Power systems
etc...). In broad handwaving terms, one is better-off with the NICs
interrupts being handled by the topologically closest CPU. (Not that
some irqbalancer programs recognize that just yet :)
Now, if both CPU0 and CPU1 are saturated it might make sense to put some
interrupts on 2 and/or 3. One of those fun "it depends" situations.
rick jones
-
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
