| To: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:33:01 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | "ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx" <ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx>, "hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xerox@xxxxxxxxxx" <xerox@xxxxxxxxxx>, "sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <fw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20030610.084940.74727904.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <008001c32eda$56760830$4a00000a@badass> <20030609195652.E35696@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.51.0306092006420.12038@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030610.084940.74727904.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | ralph+d@xxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:32:48 -0400 (EDT) > > Lastly from the software side Linux doesn't seem to have anything like > BSD's parameter to control user/system CPU sharing. Once my CPU load > reaches 70-80%, I'd rather have some dropped packets than let the CPU hit > 100% and end up with my BGP sessions drop. > > When packet (more specifically, software interrupt) processing > reaches a certain level, we offload the work into process context. That sounds good. Is there a sysctl I can use to define "certain level"? -Ralph |
| Previous by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ralph Doncaster |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, Ben Greear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |