From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 22 10:25:24 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7728E1065670; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:25:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from venkatduvvuru.ml@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gh0-f182.google.com (mail-gh0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19F6E8FC0C; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ghbz22 with SMTP id z22so1610134ghb.13 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:25:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=fqyE6KAUnts32RQfYn4uyaKt3Ag9QBKo/nuaDl8/ZnU=; b=nlYbahNPIUR3B/pzSbwdmCwLC5tOa37Zp/BjroKCNRfQYDn6I66a4C7bi7pJgHqRaF IjQQH3RemJMBtW4iBz7ZTRSMA3UalG2sEgSkXDrdcKUZnEjdVEnmyUISioOHyqVPVykf YdiRNO/aPEGAIpyq5gjMNzJ8tpvMvh/zJI8y1pzrV4Kg28S0Jd3DDnLCY3/XPRrl1DtJ 7F0c50lfFOd8PXwSWfF7GBhFRcwQ5KCFOgLQpkqSJQf6Pd3ZYs/+HrAg1yEYLTbWu3C6 mNbWrCqc2UVpkBLUGG36WwjITFjZ31d1WEcwWgd5iky6hSy8eoyr7khjdy4E3om4XNvQ AF1w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.41.165 with SMTP id g5mr976578igl.13.1340360723244; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:25:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.77.72 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 03:25:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201206210816.22774.jhb@freebsd.org> <201206210947.30171.jhb@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:55:23 +0530 Message-ID: From: Venkat Duvvuru To: John Baldwin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: MSI-X limitation in freebsd 8.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:25:24 -0000 and no matter in which order I bring up the interfaces, the system becomes sluggish after the 5th interface is brought up. So doesn't look like a specific driver issue. On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Venkat Duvvuru wrote: > This setup has variety of NICs, Intel's, Emulex's and all are stock > drivers. > > /Venkat > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:17 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > >> On Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:50:06 am Venkat Duvvuru wrote: >> > While I'm able to ping to the machine..every command on the current >> active >> > session is sluggish infact doesn't complete, unable to open another ssh >> > session..an already opened ssh session doesn't react which is running >> > "systat -vmstat"... >> > >> > The only thing I could do is to successfully complete "top -P" command >> > once..even top hung for the second time. >> >> Hmm, is this a stock FreeBSD driver or an out-of-tree NIC driver? >> >> > /Venkat >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >> > >> > > On Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:47:48 am Venkat Duvvuru wrote: >> > > > John - Thanks for the reply. >> > > > >> > > > All the CPUs are ~100% idle. I don't see any interrupt storm on any >> of >> > > the >> > > > irqs (vmstat -i). >> > > > >> > > > One observation I made is that I see messages like these in dmesg >> > > > >> > > > ===> mem >> > > 0xfaf60000-0xfaf7ffff,0xfaf40000-0xfaf5ffff,0xfaf1c000-0xfaf1ffff >> > > > irq 40 at device 0.1 on pci6 >> > > > >> > > > Looking at the irq value I think it is the INTx irq range which >> shouldn't >> > > > have probably got allocated as the device is msix capable and there >> are >> > > > vectors allocated for these devices in the range (256-380). >> > > > >> > > > Could this be a problem? >> > > >> > > No, that line is output before the driver's attach routine is run, so >> it >> > > will >> > > always show INTx IRQ value even if it isn't used. >> > > >> > > > The scenario where I am hitting this problem is a setup with 4 >> NICs, each >> > > > NIC with two ports and each port using up 4 msix vectors. The >> system is >> > > > fine till some ports are up but once I ifup the 5th port, the system >> > > > becomes sluggish. >> > > > >> > > > I'm not sure whether all the 30 vectors are from a single cpu..I >> don't >> > > know >> > > > how to get that information. >> > > >> > > Unfortunately there isn't an easy way. I have this gdb script which >> can >> > > display it from kgdb on x86: >> > > >> > > define irqs >> > > set $e = event_list->tqh_first >> > > while ($e != 0) >> > > if ($e->ie_source != 0 && $e->ie_handlers.tqh_first != 0) >> > > set $src = (struct intsrc *)$e->ie_source >> > > if ($src->is_pic->pic_enable_source == >> &ioapic_enable_source) >> > > set $_cpu = ((struct ioapic_intsrc *)$src)->io_cpu >> > > else >> > > if ($src->is_pic->pic_enable_source == >> &msi_enable_source) >> > > set $_cpu = ((struct msi_intsrc *)$src)->msi_cpu >> > > else >> > > set $_cpu = 0 >> > > end >> > > end >> > > printf "CPU %d: %s\n", $_cpu, $e->ie_fullname >> > > end >> > > set $e = $e->ie_list.tqe_next >> > > end >> > > end >> > > >> > > document irqs >> > > Dump list of IRQs with associated CPU. >> > > end >> > > >> > > However, unless the driver is using BUS_BIND_IRQ() or you are using >> cpuset >> > > -x, >> > > the interrupts should be round-robin assigned among CPUs. >> > > >> > > What exactly do you mean by sluggish? Trying to interact with the >> box over >> > > SSH is sluggish? Is there a change in RTT if you are pinging the >> box, is >> > > there a change in performance of TCP or UDP streams to/from the box? >> > > >> > > -- >> > > John Baldwin >> > > >> > >> >> -- >> John Baldwin >> > >