Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:09:16 +0000 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: =?utf-8?B?0JrQvtC90YzQutC+0LIg0JXQstCz0LXQvdC40Lk=?= <kes-kes@yandex.ru> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, bz@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: misc/164130: broken netisr initialization Message-ID: <737885D7-5DC2-4A0D-A5DF-4A380D035648@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <68477246.20120115000025@yandex.ru> References: <201201142126.q0ELQVbZ087496@freefall.freebsd.org> <68477246.20120115000025@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?737885D7-5DC2-4A0D-A5DF-4A380D035648>