David Daney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Chris Friesen wrote:
>> On 10/22/2009 03:40 PM, David Daney wrote:
>>> The main problem I have encountered is how to fit the interrupt
>>> management into the kernel framework. Currently the interrupt source
>>> is connected to a single irq number. I request_irq, and then manage
>>> the masking and unmasking on a per cpu basis by directly manipulating
>>> the interrupt controller's affinity/routing registers. This goes
>>> behind the back of all the kernel's standard interrupt management
>>> routines. I am looking for a better approach.
>>> One thing that comes to mind is that I could assign a different
>>> interrupt number per cpu to the interrupt signal. So instead of
>>> having one irq I would have 32 of them. The driver would then do
>>> request_irq for all 32 irqs, and could call enable_irq and disable_irq
>>> to enable and disable them. The problem with this is that there isn't
>>> really a single packets-ready signal, but instead 16 of them. So If I
>>> go this route I would have 16(lines) x 32(cpus) = 512 interrupt
>>> numbers just for the networking hardware, which seems a bit excessive.
>> Does your hardware do flow-based queues? In this model you have
>> multiple rx queues and the hardware hashes incoming packets to a single
>> queue based on the addresses, ports, etc. This ensures that all the
>> packets of a single connection always get processed in the order they
>> arrived at the net device.
> Indeed, this is exactly what we have.
>> Typically in this model you have as many interrupts as queues
>> (presumably 16 in your case). Each queue is assigned an interrupt and
>> that interrupt is affined to a single core.
> Certainly this is one mode of operation that should be supported, but I would
> also like to be able to go for raw throughput and have as many cores as
> reading from a single queue (like I currently have).
I believe will detect false packet drops and ask for unnecessary
retransmits if you have multiple cores processing a single queue,
because you are processing the packets out of order.