> From: Neil Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:44:04 +1000
> Presumably on a sufficiently large SMP machine that this became an
> issue, there would be multiple NICs. Maybe it would make sense to
> have one udp socket for each NIC. Would that make sense? or work?
> It feels to me to be cleaner than one for each CPU.
> Doesn't make much sense.
> Usually we are talking via one IP address, and thus over
> one device. It could be using multiple NICs via BONDING,
> but that would be transparent to anything at the socket
> Really, I think there is real value to making the socket
> per-cpu even on a 2 or 4 way system.
I am still seeing some sort of problem on an 8 way (hyperthreaded 8
logical/4 physical) on UDP with these patches. I cannot get more than 2
NFSd threads in a run state at one time. TCP usually has 8 or more. The
test involves 40 100Mbit clients reading a 200 MB file on one server (4
acenic adapters) in cache. I am fighting some other issues at the moment
(acpi wierdness), but so far before the patches, 82 MB/sec for NFSv2,UDP and
138 MB/sec for NFSv2,TCP. With the patches, 115 MB/sec for NFSv2,UDP and
181 MB/sec for NFSv2,TCP. One CPU is maxed due to acpi int storm, so I
think the results will get better. I'm not sure what other lock or
contention point this is hitting on UDP. If there is anything I can do to
help, please let me know, thanks.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:31 EST