From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] rfs: Receive Flow Steering Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:33:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4BC89F6D.2080604@hp.com> References: <20100412171205.561a1aec@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, Ingo Molnar , Paul Turner To: Tom Herbert Return-path: Received: from g1t0026.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.33]:10744 "EHLO g1t0026.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751352Ab0DPRdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:33:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > This is true. There is a fundamental question of whether scheduler > should lead networking or vice versa. The advantages of networking > following scheduler seem to become more apparent on heavily loaded > systems or with threads that handle more than one flow. I will confess to being in the networking should follow the scheduler camp :) > I'm not sure these two models have to be mutually exclusive, we are > looking at some ways to make a hybrid model. It is perhaps too speculative on my part, but if the host has no control over the remote addressing of the connections to/from it, doesn't that suggest that allowing networking to lead the scheduler gives "external forces" more say in intra-system resource consumption than we might want them to have? rick jones