Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Theurer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36 | Date | 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/
| |