> > The meta question behind all that would seem to be whether the scheduler > should be telling us where to perform the network processing, or should > the network processing be telling the scheduler what to do? (eg all my > old blathering about IPS vs TOPS in HP-UX...)
That's an unsolved problem. But past experiments suggest that giving the scheduler more imperatives than just "use CPUs well" are often net-losses. I suspect it cannot be completely solved in the general case. > Well, yes and no. If I drop the "burst" and instead have N times more > netperf's going, I see the same lock contention situation. I wasn't > expecting to - thinking that if there were then N different processes on > each CPU the likelihood of there being a contention on any one socket > was low, but it was there just the same. > > That is part of what makes me wonder if there is a race between wakeup A race? > and release of a lock. You could try with echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_low_latency. That should change RX locking behaviour significantly. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
