From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756833AbZCSBzN (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:55:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753786AbZCSByz (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:54:55 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48233 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751884AbZCSByy (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:54:54 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090318.185441.138157931.davem@davemloft.net> To: sven@thebigcorporation.com Cc: ghaskins@novell.com, vernux@us.ibm.com, andi@firstfloor.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, pmullaney@novell.com Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1237427007.8204.55.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com> References: <1237425191.8204.41.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com> <20090318.181713.62394874.davem@davemloft.net> <1237427007.8204.55.camel@quadrophenia.thebigcorporation.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:27 -0700 > Do we have to rule-out per-CPU queues, that aggregate into a master > queue in a batch-wise manner? That would violate the properties and characteristics expected by the packet scheduler, wrt. to fair based fairness, rate limiting, etc. The only legal situation where we can parallelize to single device is where only the most trivial packet scheduler is attached to the device and the device is multiqueue, and that is exactly what we do right now.