Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 12:56:56 +0200 (CEST) From: Emeric POUPON <emeric.poupon@stormshield.eu> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arch <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: numa and taskqueues Message-ID: <816581118.55670987.1496141816904.JavaMail.zimbra@stormshield.eu> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=6bpo1Yu6XosN3BiYOakjeXS8J7wenfubzkWz2SxXR1g@mail.gmail.com> References: <1914359731.54283525.1495178031163.JavaMail.zimbra@stormshield.eu> <CAJ-Vmo=6bpo1Yu6XosN3BiYOakjeXS8J7wenfubzkWz2SxXR1g@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, > Anyway - I think it'd be nice to have domain aware and pcpu aware > taskqueues so we can eventually migrate to a taskqueue group model of > "one top level things for net processing" for devices to share, etc, > etc. But for the short term just prototype it with some thin API in > crypto that wraps the taskqueue / kproc work so it gets done, then > push that work out for review/evaluation. if it does indeed work the > way you intend, we can try to use it as a template for a higher level, > shared taskqueue thing. It looks like it is somewhat mandatory to modify the taskqueue API to pin threads to the correct CPUs. The logic to define which CPU need to be set is another story that indeed can first be implemented in crypto(9). By the way: 1/ do you have some pointers on domain enumeration and other numa related code? 2/ about https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10680, I think it would be great to have this commited as a first step. Since it seems to be stuck, maybe I can add more people on this. Any suggestion? Emeric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?816581118.55670987.1496141816904.JavaMail.zimbra>