From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090319.135243.51567158.davem@davemloft.net> References: <49C1C09E.8050405@novell.com> <20090318.223806.123468340.davem@davemloft.net> <49C23DB9.6000905@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vernux@us.ibm.com, andi@firstfloor.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, pmullaney@novell.com To: ghaskins@novell.com Return-path: In-Reply-To: <49C23DB9.6000905@novell.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Gregory Haskins Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:42:33 -0400 > David Miller wrote: > > From: Gregory Haskins > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:48:46 -0400 > > > > > >> To see this in action, try taking a moderately large smp system > >> (8-way+) and scaling the number of flows. > >> > > > > I can maintain line-rate over 10GB with a 64-cpu box. > Oh man, I am jealous of that 64-way :) > > How many simultaneous flows? What hardware? What qdisc and other > config do you use? MTU? I cannot replicate such results on 10GB even > with much smaller cpu counts. Sun Neptune NIU 10G with 24 TX queues. And it's all because of the number of TX queues, nothing more. It is essential for good performance with any level of cpu arity.