From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: eilong@broadcom.com
Cc: rick.jones2@hp.com, ole@ans.pl, eric.dumazet@gmail.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] bnx2x: Insane RX rings
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:42:20 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100910.094220.220056217.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284117374.30831.2.camel@lb-tlvb-eilong.il.broadcom.com>
From: "Eilon Greenstein" <eilong@broadcom.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:16:14 +0300
> There are few factors that can be considered when scaling the ring
> sizes:
> - Number of queues per device
> - Number of devices
> - Available amount of memory
> - Others...
>
> I'm thinking about adding a factor only according to the number of
> queues - this will still cause issues for systems with many ports. Does
> that sound reasonable or not enough? Do you think the number of devices
> or even the amount of free memory should be considered?
I think scaling based upon the number of queues is a good place
to start.
Multi-port is less of an issue. The problem we really care about is
stemming from the fact that the same exact port will require more
memory than another one simply because it has more queues active.
I would even argue that this is a zero sum thing to do, because
since the traffic ought to be distributed, you have enough buffers
to handle the load.
Of course I understand that a certain level of buffering is necessary
even on a per-queue level with many queues active, so if you scale
based upon the number of queues but then enforce a minimum (something
like 128 entries) that would be a reasonable thing to do.
Thanks for looking into this Eilon.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-10 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-09 20:45 [RFC] bnx2x: Insane RX rings Eric Dumazet
2010-09-09 21:21 ` Krzysztof Olędzki
2010-09-09 21:30 ` David Miller
2010-09-09 21:38 ` Rick Jones
2010-09-10 11:16 ` Eilon Greenstein
2010-09-10 15:46 ` Rick Jones
2010-09-10 15:54 ` Rick Jones
2010-09-10 16:42 ` David Miller [this message]
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=20100910.094220.220056217.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eilong@broadcom.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ole@ans.pl \
--cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
/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).