From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: NUMA and multiQ interation Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:10:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20091124.121017.231454645.davem@davemloft.net> References: <65634d660911240904y294ea6fj4cf2e4ac757e619b@mail.gmail.com> <20091124.100613.240222762.davem@davemloft.net> <65634d660911241151q4d7522c0nf9c2e4667c333185@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: therbert@google.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:37617 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932829AbZKXUJ7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:09:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <65634d660911241151q4d7522c0nf9c2e4667c333185@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Tom Herbert Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:51:39 -0800 > I saw that thread, and it looks compelling. But we have applications > that are network bound such that we want to use multiple queues across > multiple nodes for scaling-- and trying keep all queues on the same > node does not scale very well. Maybe ignoring NUMA allocation could > be a fall-back mode in a dynamic allocation with heavy load? You use the word "But" as if what PJ and friends are doing is different from what you're trying to achive. I think they are the same.