Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:30:25 -0700
From:      Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: igb(4) Pondering a bind to cpu patch
Message-ID:  <1335382225.2722.6.camel@powernoodle-l7.corp.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <201204250932.21378.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <1335312667.11564.13.camel@powernoodle-l7.corp.yahoo.com> <201204250932.21378.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 06:32 -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> CPU IDs are not guaranteed to be dense.  However, you can use
> CPU_FIRST() and 
> CPU_NEXT() with your static global instead.
> 
Ah, does CPU_NEXT() reset to 0 when it reaches the end of its list of
CPUs?


> OTOH, if igb were to just leave the interrupts alone instead of
> binding them 
> by hand, they would get round-robin assigned among available cores
> already.  I 
> think in this case the best approach might be to add a tunable to
> disable 
> igb's manual binding and instead let the default system round-robin
> be 
> preserved. 

also, yes.  Why *are* we binding to CPUs in the first place?  Are we
afraid that the scheduler won't do the right thing and we're trying to
work around some unknown performance issue ?

Sean




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1335382225.2722.6.camel>