From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 7 05:21:37 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 186EA10657F7; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:21:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sepherosa@gmail.com) Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32F18FC19; Tue, 7 Apr 2009 05:21:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sepherosa@gmail.com) Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so1577479yxm.13 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:21:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wNuwinYxBCvF8vYa0V0jL+P0uXVMNgUixSJCu7C1eL8=; b=LLwMiV196OGQr8kLV3CyczHi+eQp5RaNgYiLHN1opHX9MYQwoPIQJAWWYuO0wQ7zFH 1CGa52u1NQyvq+020Bcx5Azhif18v7Okcmec3u2/tPLM7cwFvYooSX3EqNw8ZRqF7j6H 1y2bcQwXJMBKKSgnybH0IddEQWS4jPwSPWADQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=LNZ8hJVwnO/8/OloW/VpJi06Sb1rKEm5qzDeO2RyF2dLh8/Lz/5T4kFfrmqwFmCXDR IwyU1lftic+NrK5PS+NmfjGWI5so6pIzcL/0MmY+Ao0Dy58apnZ73yq1qwNxjjgXeNWA Dej6pRJdtRIBj4Si3iVCX8il2TogsyxnNXq20= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.108.3 with SMTP id k3mr9806426ybm.103.1239080268891; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:57:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:57:48 +0800 Message-ID: From: Sepherosa Ziehau To: Ivan Voras Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Advice on a multithreaded netisr patch? 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: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 05:21:37 -0000 On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> >> On Sun, 5 Apr 2009, Ivan Voras wrote: >> >>> I thought this has something to deal with NIC moderation (em) but >>> can't really explain it. The bad performance part (not the jump) is >>> also visible over the loopback interface. >> >> FYI, if you want high performance, you really want a card supporting >> multiple input queues -- igb, cxgb, mxge, etc. if_em-only cards are PCI-E em(4) supports 2 RX queues. 82571/82572 support 2 TX queues. I have not tested multi-TX queues, but em(4) multi-RX queues work well in dfly (tested with 82573 and 82571) >> fundamentally less scalable in an SMP environment because they require >> input or output to occur only from one CPU at a time. > > Makes sense, but on the other hand - I see people are routing at least > 250,000 packets per seconds per direction with these cards, so they > probably aren't the bottleneck (pro/1000 pt on pci-e). It should be some variants of 82571EB Best Regards, sephe -- Live Free or Die