From: Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@gmail.com>,
"Shawn Bohrer" <sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com>,
Jonathan Cooper <jcooper@solarflare.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] udp: allow busy_poll on some unconnected sockets
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 19:38:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5346E520.7080007@solarflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1397154745.16584.42.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
On 10/04/14 19:32, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 19:04 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>
>> Tested by setting IFF_SINGLE_NAPI in sfc; a UDP ping-pong test showed a
>> performance benefit from sysctl net.core.busy_{read,poll}=50 in both the
>> connected and unconnected case, where previously it only saw the benefit
>> when the socket had been connected.
> Right, but how often do we have single NAPI devices on hosts wanting
> very low latencies ?
>
Well, sfc only has a single NAPI context per device, and I'm fairly sure
most sfc users want very low latencies.
Or have I misunderstood?
(Note that it doesn't matter if there are other NAPI-using devices on
the host, since the socket is bound to a local address and thus is only
going to receive packets from the one device that has that address. So
maybe IFF_SINGLE_NAPI is a bad name and it should be
IFF_DEVICE_ONLY_HAS_A_SINGLE_NAPI_CONTEXT. But that's a bit unwieldy ;)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-10 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-09 14:13 udp: Question about busy_poll change Edward Cree
2014-04-09 14:51 ` Shawn Bohrer
2014-04-09 16:20 ` Edward Cree
2014-04-10 18:04 ` [RFC PATCH] udp: allow busy_poll on some unconnected sockets Edward Cree
2014-04-10 18:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2014-04-10 18:38 ` Edward Cree [this message]
2014-04-10 19:04 ` Eric Dumazet
2014-04-11 10:44 ` Jonathan Cooper
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=5346E520.7080007@solarflare.com \
--to=ecree@solarflare.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jcooper@solarflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sbohrer@rgmadvisors.com \
--cc=shawn.bohrer@gmail.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.