From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pkt_sched: restore multiqueue prio scheduler Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:19:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20080822221913.GA2981@ami.dom.local> References: <1219415417.4672.79.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com, jeff@garzik.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, alexander.h.duyck@intel.com To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.172]:16649 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753757AbYHVWSX (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:18:23 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id c2so247800ugf.37 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1219415417.4672.79.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: jamal wrote, On 08/22/2008 04:30 PM: ... > There are two issues at stake: > 1) egress Multiq support and the desire to have concurency based on > however many cpus and hardware queues exist on the system. > 2) scheduling of the such hardware queues being executed by the hardware > (and not by software). > > Daves goal: #1; run faster than Usain Bolt. Looks fine. > What we were solving at the time: #2. My view was to solve it with > minimal changes. > > #1 and #2 are orthogonal. Yes, there is religion: Dave yours is #1. > Intels is #2; And there are a lot of people in intels camp because > they bill their customers based on qos of resources. The wire being one > such resource. If we can guarentee that current, automatic steering gives always the best performance than David seems to be right. But I doubt it, and that's why I think such a simple, manual control could be useful. Especially if it doesn't add much overhead. > Therefore your statement that these schemes exist to "enforce fairness > amongst the TX queues" needs to be qualified mon ami;-> The end parts of > Animal Farm come to mind: Some animals have more rights than others;-> Sure, but shouldn't this other kind of fairness be applied on lower levels? Cheers, Jarek P.