From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 10 16:52:34 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1579F37B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 May 2003 16:52:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6408E43FDD
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 May 2003 16:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from don@sandvine.com)
Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <K42C4BLP>; Sat, 10 May 2003 19:52:32 -0400
Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C8533701B365FE@mail.sandvine.com>
From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
To: 'Bruce Evans' <bde@zeta.org.au>,
	Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:52:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: polling(4) and idle time/cpu usage percentages
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 23:52:34 -0000

From: Bruce Evans [mailto:bde@zeta.org.au]
> On Sun, 4 May 2003, Kevin Day wrote:
> 
> > I've got a FreeBSD system acting as a router, it's passing 
> 250-600mbps of
> > traffic through it most of the time.
> >
> > Yesterday it was running 4.6-RELEASE without polling. I've 
> upgraded it to
> > 4.8 and enabled polling. Before it was showing 30-50% CPU 
> use in interrupt
> > and system combined. Now it's showing 0-1% (99% idle).
> >
> > Is this because it's polling in the idle loop, and time 
> spent doing this
> > isn't getting accounted for anywhere, or is polling THAT 
> much more efficient?
> >
> > If it's the former, is it supposed to work this way? Now 
> I've got no clear
> > way of knowing how busy the system is. (It's just routing 
> packets, really
> > nothing more)
> 
> The former.  It's hard for it to work better without wasting too many
> cycles for the accounting.  In RELENG_4, everything done in the "idle"
> loop is counted as idle time using the single counter 
> cp_time[CP_IDLE].
> This is very efficient.

I tried this on my system, but I still end up with 0 system time.
Does the machdep.cpu_idle_hlt=1 have any affect on this?

I'm passing 1Gbps each way through a bridge (e.g. 1Gbps in
and 1Gbps out each of 2 interfaces), and I have 88.4% idle.
This is admittedly on a pretty fast processor, a 2x2.8GHz XEON.