From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: ixgbe: [RFC] [PATCH] Fix return of invalid txq Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:06:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20100115.010628.67106329.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100115.004456.15627093.davem@davemloft.net> <1263546020.2038.7.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: krkumar2@in.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com To: peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:43755 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932094Ab0AOJGT (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:06:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1263546020.2038.7.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 01:00:20 -0800 > What I've been thinking of is more for the NUMA allocations per port. > If we have, say 2 sockets, 8 cores a piece, then we have 16 CPUs. If we > assign a port to socket 0, I think the best use of resources is to > allocate 8 Rx/Tx queues, one per core in that socket. If an application > comes from the other socket, we can have a table to map the other 8 > cores from that socket into the 8 queues, instead of piling them all > into one of the Tx queues. I fail to see how this can act substantially better than simply feeding traffic evenly amongst whatever group of queues have been configured.