From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 17 00:09:19 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D0321065688; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:09:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 434FD8FC19; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:09:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.111] (host86-161-238-124.range86-161.btcentralplus.com [86.161.238.124]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64EBC46B06; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:09:18 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <68477246.20120115000025@yandex.ru> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:09:16 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <737885D7-5DC2-4A0D-A5DF-4A380D035648@FreeBSD.org> References: <201201142126.q0ELQVbZ087496@freefall.freebsd.org> <68477246.20120115000025@yandex.ru> To: =?utf-8?B?0JrQvtC90YzQutC+0LIg0JXQstCz0LXQvdC40Lk=?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, bz@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/164130: broken netisr initialization X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:09:19 -0000 On 14 Jan 2012, at 22:00, =CA=EE=ED=FC=EA=EE=E2 =C5=E2=E3=E5=ED=E8=E9 = wrote: > also in r222249 next things are broken: >=20 > 1. in net.isr.dispatch =3D deferred >=20 > intr{swiX: netisr X} always have state 'WAIT' Thanks for your (multiple) e-mails. I will catch up on the remainder of = the thread tomorrow, having returned from travel today, but wanted to = point you at "netstat -Q", which will allow you to more directly test = what dispatch policy is being implemented. It allows you to directly = inspect counters for directly dispatched vs. deferred packets with each = netisr thread. Relying on sampled CPU use can be quite misleading, as = dispatch policies can have counter-intuitive effects on performance and = CPU use; directly monitoring the cause, rather than the effect, would be = more reliable for debugging purposes. Robert >=20 > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > 11 root 155 ki31 0K 32K RUN 1 25:02 87.16% = idle{idle: cpu1} > 11 root 155 ki31 0K 32K CPU0 0 25:08 86.72% = idle{idle: cpu0} > 11 root 155 ki31 0K 32K CPU2 2 24:23 83.50% = idle{idle: cpu2} > 11 root 155 ki31 0K 32K CPU3 3 24:47 81.93% = idle{idle: cpu3} > 12 root -92 - 0K 248K WAIT 3 0:59 6.54% = intr{irq266: re0} > 3375 root 40 0 15468K 6504K select 2 1:03 4.98% snmpd > 12 root -72 - 0K 248K WAIT 3 0:28 3.12% = intr{swi1: netisr 1} > 12 root -60 - 0K 248K WAIT 0 0:34 1.71% = intr{swi4: clock} > 12 root -72 - 0K 248K WAIT 3 0:27 1.71% = intr{swi1: netisr 3} > 12 root -72 - 0K 248K WAIT 1 0:20 1.37% = intr{swi1: netisr 0} > 0 root -92 0 0K 152K - 2 0:30 0.98% = kernel{dummynet} > 12 root -72 - 0K 248K WAIT 3 0:13 0.88% = intr{swi1: netisr 2} > 13 root -92 - 0K 32K sleep 1 0:11 0.24% = ng_queue{ng_queue3} > 13 root -92 - 0K 32K sleep 1 0:11 0.10% = ng_queue{ng_queue0} > 13 root -92 - 0K 32K sleep 1 0:11 0.10% = ng_queue{ng_queue1} >=20 >=20 > 2. There is no cpu load differences between dispatch methods. I have > tested two: direct and deferred (see on picture) >=20 > http://piccy.info/view3/2482121/cc6464fbe959fd65ecb5a8b94a23ec38/orig/ >=20 > 'deferred' method works same as 'direct' method! >=20 >=20