Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:29:54 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: two NIC on 2 core system (scheduling problem) Message-ID: <ge6t20$7n1$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <200810281309.58262.bartosz.giza@korbank.pl> References: <200810281235.53508.gizmen@blurp.pl> <4906EC8D.7070503@freebsd.org> <4906EE31.3080400@samoylyk.sumy.ua> <200810281309.58262.bartosz.giza@korbank.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Bartosz Giza wrote: > Tuesday 28 of October 2008 11:49:21 Oleksandr Samoylyk napisał(a): >> Ivan Voras wrote: >>> Bartosz Giza wrote: >>>> Another question is why em0 taskq is eating so much cpu ? BGE >>>> interface is actually one that pushes 2 times more packets than em0 >>>> and it uses about half cpu comparing to em0. Is that not strange ? >>>> Could someone tell my why is this happening ? BGE is faster ? or maybe >>>> i can tune some >>> I have the same problem - em0 taskq eating incredible amounts of CPU. >>> If you find a solution, contact me! >> It could be not just a problem with em driver. >> Firstly, it's good to make profiling and find out what exactly eats CPU >> time. > > Yes, we should make some profiling, but it is quite hard on busy production > router. When i turn on pooling on em0 card swi1: net is using about 3% of > cpu. So it is quite big difference between 20% with tasq and 3% with > polling. Is the difference reflected in your system / idle CPU time? (i.e. does your idle time increase for ~~ 17%?) [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJBveyldnAQVacBcgRAqQIAJ9kVHmIeN+wnD2QRWRDdFjfEi0FVACg4v6K FTNx57pbpYQ+Bb1O3GJXLSM= =QJDm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ge6t20$7n1$1>