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>