RE: [NFS] Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36
From: Lever, Charles <hidden>
Date: 2002-10-16 13:59:13
Also in:
lkml
From: Lever, Charles <hidden>
Date: 2002-10-16 13:59:13
Also in:
lkml
-----Original Message----- From: David S. Miller [mailto:davem@redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 12:31 AM From: Neil Brown [off-list ref] 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 level. Really, I think there is real value to making the socket per-cpu even on a 2 or 4 way system.
having a local socket per CPU is very good for SMP scaling. it multiplies input buffer space, and reduces socket lock and CPU cache contention. sorry, i don't have measurements.