Subject: Re: [PATCH] ifb: add multi-queue support

From: Eric Dumazet <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:53:04 +0100

Changli Gao a écrit :
> Yea, the overhead of SoftIRQ is less than kernel threads, and I'll try
> to find a way to solve both flexibility and efficiency. Maybe I need
> some real NIC drivers as examples. Is there a standard API to bind RQs
> of NIC to CPUs, such as ioctl or setsockopt?

Thats a good question... napi is bound to a cpu, and you'll need
things that were done by Tom Herbert in its RPS patch, to
be able to deleguate work to remote cpus napi contexts.

But if we consider RPS being close to be committed, shouldnt
IFB use its, in order to not duplicate changes ?

Or, if you prefer, once RPS is in, we dont need to change IFB, since
RPS will already split the load to multiple cpus before entering IFB.