LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gergely Imre <>
To: Arjan van de Ven <>
Subject: Re: irq balancing question
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:51:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> in fact i have two cards, and 4 CPUs, but i was interested in then answer
>> Robert gave, that only _some_ machines distribute interrupts in hardware.
>> software distribution is obviously not good. consider this scenario:
>> you have one machine with 4 cpus, and two ethernet cards with a lot of
>> traffic on them. if you bind every card to one cpu, two of them are not used,
>> so you really use only half the power. not let's say you have so much traffic
>> (with limiting enabled, htb or something), that the two CPUs are on 100% all
>> the time, but the other two are doing nothing.
>> now if you could balance that to all 4 cpus, you could use all the power AND
>> no cpu would be used 100%.
> actually this will give you worse performance than only using 2 cores.
> The reason for this is twofold
> 1) If you rotate the irqs, TCP and IP packet fragments will arrive at
> different CPUs. This in turn means that a VERY expensive reassembly path
> gets taken, compared to local-cpu-only reassembly
> 2) If you rotate the irqs, you bounce cachelines between the caches ALL
> THE TIME, which is also very expensive.
> Both make it more likely that you'll be slower than just using only 2
> cores...

and i guess it doesn't matter if the distribution is being done by the
hardware, from the point of view of the kernel, i would still get the
performance penalty.

and what if CPU0 and CPU1 is actually the same CPU, only duo core, and i'm
distributing interrupts to them, and with the other card to CPU2 and 3 (which
are part of the other physical CPU) ?

i'm just trying to figure it out, i have no real knowledge of the inner
kernel workings, so i dont know. but i really would like to use all 4 cores.
just how expensive is that reassembly path ?

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-23 18:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-23 11:32 Imre Gergely
2007-02-23 14:45 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-02-23 14:58   ` Gergely Imre
2007-02-23 15:54     ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-02-23 18:51       ` Gergely Imre [this message]
2007-02-23 19:01         ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-02-23 20:57           ` Gergely Imre
     [not found] <fa.o8VX4Uax4/>
2007-02-23 14:39 ` Robert Hancock
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-12-15 14:00 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2005-11-17  8:28 ` JaniD++
2005-12-15  0:48 Pallipadi, Venkatesh
2005-12-15  9:10 ` JaniD++
2005-12-14 21:05 JaniD++
2005-12-14 21:16 ` Arjan van de Ven
2005-12-14 21:31   ` JaniD++

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:

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

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: irq balancing question' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).