From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr  8 19:15:33 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB51EBE1
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon,  8 Apr 2013 19:15:33 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from rysto32@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com (mail-oa0-f54.google.com
 [209.85.219.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD14327A
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon,  8 Apr 2013 19:15:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id n12so6516775oag.41
 for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
 :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=gOggC9pZWx947QPLTKAV4+9lbxa6HHBaP/yH1WQRhU0=;
 b=KchV9KXleIPUHjxRtqGl85fkzrjDSXlZ+g6L/9l7vFnfGPO3p4l62i0znUMp2IVF1l
 6XjgWLbldN9W1Yw4ABNjHOs1Ruq3dDQVAyWRMNgfgBKd7DlhHxSUZOWfV5kKj33TTqEy
 r5/QMKrMCwrLgsYPBAlLObcqD8zARACNe9QAN5bU+XGyA7//1/RtX8pLv2JXNOz7olO3
 dN+cbi+TIMkbkndL0fHCxnqoOk3xcasUgdEE2p0LOTANh6bjOYp03dFxFXIuOU+ImS6N
 hT0ZGBAzy+/uoKxN6Xyku8wttBTAcytmtvaOG1wX8kJi2G6kx6cSyCB4pZhuma7uMarn
 aqGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.166.10 with SMTP id zc10mr8689842obb.80.1365448532937;
 Mon, 08 Apr 2013 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.109.236 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BF3270C86E8B1349A26C34E4EC1C44CB2B82015D@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com>
References: <BF3270C86E8B1349A26C34E4EC1C44CB2B82015D@CMEXMB1.ad.emulex.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:15:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFMmRNxFcg3ag_5ZRCpa-FGxUrR5TxCy4dbcjFRhEdWU1hF=MA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: drbr_enqueue - OCE driver - Freebsd 9.1
From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
To: "Duvvuru,Venkat Kumar" <VenkatKumar.Duvvuru@emulex.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 19:15:33 -0000

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Duvvuru,Venkat Kumar <
VenkatKumar.Duvvuru@emulex.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> In the transmit path, if enqueue mechanism is used instead of blocking on
> the lock, the throughput is not good in some scenarios (especially single
> queue, multiple connections).
> For example:
> if (TRY_LOCK(&wq->tx_lock)) {
>            status = oce_multiq_transmit(ifp, m, wq);
>            UNLOCK(&wq->tx_lock);
>      } else {
>            status = drbr_enqueue(ifp, wq->br, m);
>      }
>
> Instead of the above code where the request is enqueued if I use a normal
> LOCK and block on it, it is giving good performance.
>
> Any suggestions on why the throughput is low in case of enqueue mechanism.
>
> Thx,
> Venkat.
>

Shouldn't you be triggering a taskqueue to actually transmit the packet in
the "failed to acquire lock" case?  Otherwise it could be held in the drbr
indefinitely.