On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:03:58AM -0400, jamal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Did I understand you right, that you replaced trylock with lock and
> > thus removed collision handling and got better results?
>
> Yes, a small one with the 4 CPUs and no irq binding. Note that in the
> test cases i run, the contention for queue lock was high (since all CPUs
> were busy processing traffic).
> I think as the the number of CPUs go up, this will become more
> prominent. The choice is between contending for queue lock or this lock.
> One lock is contended by max of two cpus, the other by N cpus. As N goes
> up, you want to have more mercy on the one that is contended by N cpus.
> Did that make sense?
I think if number of cpus grows and there is no interupt binding, system
will not scale very well anyway, but your description makes sense,
thanks.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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
