Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36

Andrew Theurer (habanero@us.ibm.com)
Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:04:27 -0500


On Tuesday 15 October 2002 11:31 pm, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:44:04 +1000
>
> Presumably on a sufficiently large SMP machine that this became an
> issue, there would be multiple NICs. Maybe it would make sense to
> have one udp socket for each NIC. Would that make sense? or work?
> It feels to me to be cleaner than one for each CPU.
>
> Doesn't make much sense.
>
> Usually we are talking via one IP address, and thus over
> one device. It could be using multiple NICs via BONDING,
> but that would be transparent to anything at the socket
> level.
>
> Really, I think there is real value to making the socket
> per-cpu even on a 2 or 4 way system.

I am trying my best today to get a 4 way system up and running for this test.
IMO, per cpu is best.. with just one socket, I seriously could not get over
33% cpu utilization on a 4 way (back in April). With TCP, I could max it
out. I'll update later today hopefully with some promising results.

-Andrew
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/