[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit

To: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] Transmission limit
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 30 Nov 2004 09:25:54 -0500
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@xxxxxxxxxxx>, P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mellia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, e1000-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jorge Manuel Finochietto <jorge.finochietto@xxxxxxxxx>, Giulio Galante <galante@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: jamalopolous
References: <> <> <> <> <> <1101499285.1079.45.camel@jzny.localdomain> <> <1101821501.1043.43.camel@jzny.localdomain> <>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 08:46, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:31:41AM -0500, jamal wrote:
> > >  Also from what I understand new HW and MSI can help in the case where
> > >  pass objects between CPU. Did I dream or did someone tell me that S2IO 
> > >  could have several TX ring that could via MSI be routed to proper cpu?
> > 
> > I am wondering if the per CPU tx/rx irqs are valuable at all. They sound
> > like more hell to maintain.
> On the TX path you'd have qdiscs to deal with as well, no?

I think management of it would be non-trivial in SMP. Youd have to start
playing stupid loadbalancing tricks which would reduce the value of
existence of tx irqs to begin with. 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>