From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:17:40 +0200 Message-ID: <466F0D74.5030308@trash.net> References: <466DEF9D.9070509@trash.net> <1181615384.4071.121.camel@localhost> <466E9DF2.9010505@trash.net> <20070612.140240.00078635.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hadi@cyberus.ca, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46404 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751578AbXFLVUl (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:20:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070612.140240.00078635.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:21:54 +0200 > > >>So how do we move forward? > > > We're going to put hw multiqueue support in, all of this discussion > has been pointless, I just watch this thread and basically laugh at > the resistence to hw multiqueue support :-) It did help me understand the consequences of the different approaches. I'm still in favour of putting the patches in, but I've hacked up a small multiqueue simulator device and to my big surprise my testing showed that Jamal's suggestion of using a single queue state seems to work better than I expected. But I've been doing mostly testing of the device itself up to now with very simple traffic patterns (mostly just "flood all queues"), so I'll try to get some real results tomorrow.