From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933651Ab1JDUMM (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:12:12 -0400 Received: from depni.sinp.msu.ru ([213.131.7.21]:35780 "EHLO depni.sinp.msu.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933571Ab1JDUMJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:12:09 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1357 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:12:09 EDT From: Serge Belyshev To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Joe Perches , starlight@binnacle.cx, Eric Dumazet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev , Willy Tarreau , Peter Zijlstra , Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: big picture UDP/IP performance question re 2.6.18 -> 2.6.32 References: <6.2.5.6.2.20111003112108.03a83a28@binnacle.cx> <1317757118.3580.24.camel@Joe-Laptop> <874nzo35bu.fsf@depni.sinp.msu.ru> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 00:12:06 +0400 In-Reply-To: (Christoph Lameter's message of "Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:03:38 -0500 (CDT)") Message-ID: <87zkhg1ppl.fsf@depni.sinp.msu.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org BFS FAQ writes: > NUMA aware? > > It is NOT NUMA aware in the sense that it does any fancy shit on NUMA, but > it will work on NUMA hardware just fine. Only the really big NUMA hardware > is likely to suffer in performance, and this is theoretically only, since > no one has that sort of hardware to prove it to me, but it seems almost > certain. This part of FAQ entry was written before 0.300, (i.e. more than 2 years ago) > v0.300 onwards have NUMA enhancements. And this was added after. =) As of now, BFS scheduling is NUMA-aware. (see resched_best_mask())