From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Tx queue selection
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:57:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1280231872.2827.143.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1280227867.1970.208.camel@pasglop>
Le mardi 27 juillet 2010 à 20:51 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt a écrit :
> Hi folks !
>
> I'm putting my newbie hat on ... :-)
>
> While looking at our ehea driver (and in fact another upcoming driver
> I'm helping with), I noticed it's using the "old style" multiqueue. IE.
> It doesn't use the alloc_netdev_mq() variant, creates one queue on the
> linux side, an makes its own selection of HW queue in start_xmit.
>
> This had many drawbacks, obviously, such as not getting per-queue locks
> etc...
>
> Now, the mechanics of converting that to the new scheme are easy enough
> to figure out by reading the code. However, where my lack of networking
> background fails me is when it comes to the policy of choosing a Tx
> queue.
>
> ehea uses its own hash of the header, different from the "default" queue
> selection in the net core. Looking at other drivers such as ixgbe, I see
> that it can chose to use smp_processor_id() when a flag is set for which
> I don't totally understand the meaning or default to the core algorithm.
>
> Now, while I can understand why it's a good idea to use the current
> processor, in order to limit cache ping pong etc... I'm not really
> confident I understand the pro/cons of using the hashing for tx. I
> understand that the net core can play interesting games with associating
> sockets with queues etc... but I'm a bit at a loss when it comes to
> deciding what's best for this driver. I suppose I could start by
> implementing my own queue selection based on what ehea does today but I
> have the nasty feeling that's going to be sub-optimal :-)
>
> So I would very much appreciate (and reward with free beer at the next
> conference) if somebody could give me a bit of a heads up on how things
> are expected to be done there, pro/cons, perf impact etc...
I am not sure ndo_select_queue() is really needed these days. It was
done before core network was able to use a socket provided hash.
tx queue selection done by default (skb_tx_hash()) should be fine.
bnx2 for example doesnt provide a ndo_select_queue()
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-27 11:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-27 10:51 Tx queue selection Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-07-27 11:50 ` Neil Horman
2010-07-27 11:57 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2010-07-27 19:31 ` Ben Hutchings
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=1280231872.2827.143.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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 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).