netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@gmail.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] rps: Receive Packet Steering
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:01:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <65634d661003170801x1042a6am563c9d937ba672a4@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1268834957.2899.352.camel@edumazet-laptop>

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le mercredi 17 mars 2010 à 15:59 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Le mercredi 17 mars 2010 à 09:54 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:13 AM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll integrate this as soon as I open up net-next-2.6
>> >>
>> >> It is really a good news. Now linux also can dispatch packets as
>> >> FreeBSD does via netisr. Can we walk farer, and support weighted
>> >> distribution?
>> >>
>> >
>> > May I ask why ? What would be the goal ?
>> >
>>
>> For example, I have a firewall with dual core CPU, and use core 0 for
>> IRQ and dispatching. If I use both core 0 and core 1 for the left
>> processing, core 0 will be overloaded, and if I use core 1 for the
>> left processing, core 0 will be light load. In order to take full of
>> advantage of hardware, I need weighted the packet distribution.
>
> I would not use RPS at all, weighted or not, unless your firewall must
> perform heavy duty work (l7 or complex rules)
>
> If the firewall setup is expensive, then IRQ processing has minor cost,
> and RPS fits the bill (cpu handling IRQ will be a bit more loaded than
> its buddy).
>
> RPS is a win when _some_ TCP/UDP processing occurs, and we try to do
> this processing on a cpu that will also run user space thread with data
> in cpu cache (if process scheduler does a good job)
> Not much applicable for routers...
>
>
> Anyway, current sysfs RPS interface exposes
> a /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus bitmap,
>
> I guess we could expose another file,
> /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_map
> to give different weight to cpus :
>
> echo "0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1" >/sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_map
>
> cpu0 would get 30% of the postprocessing load, cpu1 70%
>
> Using /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus interface would give an
> equal weight to each cpu :
>
>
> # echo "0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1" >/sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_map
> # cat /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus
> 3
> # cat /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_map
> 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
> # echo 3 >/sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus
> # cat /sys/class/net/eth0/queues/rx-0/rps_map
> 0 1

Alternatively, the rps_map could be specified explicitly, which will
allow weighting.  For example "0 0 0 0 2 10 10 10"  would select CPUs
0, 2, 10 for the map with weights four, one, and three respectively.
This would go back to have sysfs files with multiple values in them,
so it might not be the right interface.

Tom

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-17 15:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-12 20:13 [PATCH v7] rps: Receive Packet Steering Tom Herbert
2010-03-12 21:28 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-12 23:08   ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-16 18:03     ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-16 21:00       ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-16 21:13         ` David Miller
2010-03-17  1:54           ` Changli Gao
2010-03-17  7:07             ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-17  7:59               ` Changli Gao
2010-03-17 14:09                 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-17 15:01                   ` Tom Herbert [this message]
2010-03-17 15:34                     ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-17 23:50                     ` Tom Herbert
2010-03-18  2:14                       ` Changli Gao
2010-03-18  6:30                         ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-18  6:20                       ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-18  6:48                         ` Changli Gao
2010-03-18 20:37                           ` Eric Dumazet
2010-03-18 21:23                             ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-03-17  4:26         ` David Miller
2010-03-12 22:20 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-03-12 22:32   ` David Miller
2010-03-12 22:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2010-03-12 22:33   ` David Miller
2010-03-12 23:05   ` Tom Herbert

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=65634d661003170801x1042a6am563c9d937ba672a4@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=therbert@google.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=xiaosuo@gmail.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).