From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jamal Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:35:46 -0400 Message-ID: <1181172946.4064.87.camel@localhost> References: <1181168020.4064.46.camel@localhost> <20070606.154041.08321169.davem@davemloft.net> Reply-To: hadi@cyberus.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.231]:24144 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965005AbXFFXft (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jun 2007 19:35:49 -0400 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id n1so328279nzf for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:35:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070606.154041.08321169.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 15:40 -0700, David Miller wrote: > There are two core issues in my mind: > > 1) multi-queue on both RX and TX is going to be very pervasive very > soon, everyone is putting this into silicon. > > The parallelization gain potential is enormous, and we have to > design for this. > There is no potential for parallelizing on transmit that i can think of. Dave, please explain it slowly so i can understand it. There is huge potential for parallelizing on receive. But i am certainly missing the value in the transmit. cheers, jamal