From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sat Apr 6 20:22:42 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09ED7156BDC1 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 20:22:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imb@protected-networks.net) Received: from mail.protected-networks.net (mail.protected-networks.net [202.12.127.228]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.protected-networks.net", Issuer "Protected Networks CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D2686AA86 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 20:22:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imb@protected-networks.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= protected-networks.net; h=content-transfer-encoding :content-language:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:date:message-id:from:from :references:subject:subject; s=201508; t=1554582111; bh=yrKsfmN8 keo349Wl+AC+l7BYVQFHLzadwgaGuHDUn4U=; b=e7eSVsMIY7oJajJdjA1Gt5Vx Zy+GvA1m5bewE6Gqyf2GkxuCZDvTxFHJzFIkzMlEZHbaUEr6U/ICoFdsBfZl+mr5 V6xtRBrMZjY6C8bzpMWN8JtRsgcZCTueBJdnYsNQRccqBBnFsyWtNIRbr7nLursT W+ujzLvtGhhpbq2oWr0= Received: from toshi.auburn.protected-networks.net (toshi.auburn.protected-networks.net [192.168.1.10]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: imb@mail.protected-networks.net) by mail.protected-networks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E33071087; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 16:21:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12? To: Kris von Mach , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <7673edad-1e50-7e9b-961e-f28ab7a0f41e@ingresso.co.uk> From: Michael Butler Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <4f9b9259-f5a1-ecc6-366e-4a26de0ca3dc@protected-networks.net> Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 16:21:41 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3D2686AA86 X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=protected-networks.net header.s=201508 header.b=e7eSVsMI; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of imb@protected-networks.net designates 202.12.127.228 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=imb@protected-networks.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.92 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[protected-networks.net:s=201508]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.70)[-0.702,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.997,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[protected-networks.net]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.30)[0.296,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[protected-networks.net:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[sarah.protected-networks.net,mail.protected-networks.net,sarah.protected-networks.net,mail.protected-networks.net]; IP_SCORE(-0.01)[country: US(-0.06)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:5716, ipnet:202.12.127.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 20:22:42 -0000 On 2019-04-06 08:58, Kris von Mach wrote: > On 4/6/2019 2:56 AM, Pete French wrote: >> Something odd going on there there - I am using 12-STABLE and I have >> igb just fine, and it attaches to the same hardware that 11 did: > > I ran apache bench, and I got a result of 100 requests/sec on 12-STABLE > vs 16,000 requests/sec on 11-STABLE. So something is definitely wrong. > Nothing changed other than going from 11 to 12. I'd be interested to see if substituting the port net/intel-em-kmod has any effect on the issue, imb