From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 22:34:28 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97258106564A; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A2A8FC28; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:34:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id mAAMYLMl067634; Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:34:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:33:04 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <42e3d810811100033w172e90dbl209ecbab640cc24f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <42e3d810811100033w172e90dbl209ecbab640cc24f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811101733.04547.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]); Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:34:22 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/8600/Mon Nov 10 14:40:23 2008 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: smp@freebsd.org, Archimedes Gaviola Subject: Re: CPU affinity with ULE scheduler X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:34:28 -0000 On Monday 10 November 2008 03:33:23 am Archimedes Gaviola wrote: > To Whom It May Concerned: > > Can someone explain or share about ULE scheduler (latest version 2 if > I'm not mistaken) dealing with CPU affinity? Is there any existing > benchmarks on this with FreeBSD? Because I am currently using 4BSD > scheduler and as what I have observed especially on processing high > network load traffic on multiple CPU cores, only one CPU were being > stressed with network interrupt while the rests are mostly in idle > state. This is an AMD-64 (4x) dual-core IBM system with GigE Broadcom > network interface cards (bce0 and bce1). Below is the snapshot of the > case. Interrupts are routed to a single CPU. Since bce0 and bce1 are both on the same interrupt (irq 23), the CPU that interrupt is routed to is going to end up handling all the interrupts for bce0 and bce1. This not something ULE or 4BSD have any control over. -- John Baldwin