From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sat Apr 6 22:49:17 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 9942615700E7 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 22:49:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B586FB46 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 22:49:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org) Received: from mail-it1-f178.google.com (mail-it1-f178.google.com [209.85.166.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: mmacy) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D39B812E54 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2019 22:49:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmacy@freebsd.org) Received: by mail-it1-f178.google.com with SMTP id v8so13859955itf.0 for ; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUggWBf+GtJd+al4mksLkvHUH+/1yJSzB/SgV/+a75W0H44TaeA HjsrKiA7dYN2B6kbQEc2XYrxstPyeFY1szsu01Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwHZGcODV5jTajn9z3ziPL9LO7eRM4eEbyoOXl47l2vC3iZMgbX6PZYpaIFj/frltqkQFKtJCTwgF1VMYdVMqA= X-Received: by 2002:a02:90c6:: with SMTP id c6mr14873018jag.117.1554590956234; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 15:49:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7673edad-1e50-7e9b-961e-f28ab7a0f41e@ingresso.co.uk> <4f9b9259-f5a1-ecc6-366e-4a26de0ca3dc@protected-networks.net> In-Reply-To: <4f9b9259-f5a1-ecc6-366e-4a26de0ca3dc@protected-networks.net> From: Matthew Macy Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2019 15:49:05 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: em performs worse than igb (latency wise) in 12? To: Michael Butler Cc: Kris von Mach , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 17B586FB46 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.98 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.982,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US] 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 22:49:17 -0000 On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 1:23 PM Michael Butler wrote: > > 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, I would as well. igb, em, and lem are all the same driver in 12. This makes maintenance a lot easier. However, the older NICs have a lot of errata workarounds that aren't explicitly commented as such. My first guess is this card suffers from one such errata workaround that has been dropped in the update. -M