From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Thu Aug 4 18:53:36 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B68BAF00E for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:53:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ben.rubson@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x241.google.com (mail-wm0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::241]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C99611EA9 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ben.rubson@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x241.google.com with SMTP id q128so503936wma.1 for ; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:53:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wwBbxqm3R9WWiSA2icsLeR3zXkVdYUIdatTF/V53FWU=; b=QSpdtLEqgKYlBqV4QM/bpeUEeo+hmN3GnFopZRz0/+RCrXri5ZkeTZXY3OXR2AyPR/ GnJrPKSOrR7s5QDRdjeTlYI0099v7XtsriucWK4UGWcgr+Lxom7m85aoJlARhGUXk8aw ooLiDNjCKdlq/Y48XncjKsKemIknTLEsffgxxXIUSZK+d6EAvjn1ya+QaCZLtD0027Vo A+y4H0mi4CJUEHHPU3GHoSosXzD51OKNu4O8onbePYHHggmKbizK7nmn4SyWjeJrxcRJ wguv1CPsLqtL70bziF1iK9nNKn0R4uay8ibkFW/My1Grc1CXoO3N3nbPHlljbEFrTciZ t37A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wwBbxqm3R9WWiSA2icsLeR3zXkVdYUIdatTF/V53FWU=; b=GHZHYBvO8e1AL6cH1rhwrxl8NQMAwnRhuf9mDZab/a3IpAj6VD1HGP259jlTY140tT pOnOKwGuANaMpRuuTD2rAwfjRnSswlcq8+LKL8VXT8XTPPTCGmp91q05NqqaZ/rMIOVl T6WiAVXqF2mA3HMJkyqQXypuqnbQMDUc//kT0Po2X7Ee1FESJfJbEsbrfai5gBssY4y3 voLRnLs75jEEnZvRDmhjm9zBqVG+/X7DrFrPEIy67gmJzzcLNb/bLN56y1AIXqdH7ZbI 6VNsT5l6F7psxXy67qgQ1G7SFK2eM9DUIDpRjsMZ6k5Iq34So9riHGy222KsSFbX0Ogj I6/A== X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouufWEbMYMlfyC+CY/EC8lL4G5rp3i+vr+3CKw1FZZrQbl5vRMXnmiCSS+2/kHeI2g== X-Received: by 10.28.168.150 with SMTP id r144mr70314841wme.66.1470336814053; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:53:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from macbook-air-de-benjamin.home (LFbn-1-7077-85.w90-116.abo.wanadoo.fr. [90.116.246.85]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a9sm14144138wjf.16.2016.08.04.11.53.33 for (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Aug 2016 11:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: Unstable local network throughput From: Ben RUBSON In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 20:53:34 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <27223F4B-6DE8-49D0-98C0-9F734C73C5EC@gmail.com> References: <3C0D892F-2BE8-4650-B9FC-93C8EE0443E1@gmail.com> <3B164B7B-CBFB-4518-B57D-A96EABB71647@gmail.com> <5D6DF8EA-D9AA-4617-8561-2D7E22A738C3@gmail.com> <06E414D5-9CDA-46D1-A26F-0B07E76FDB34@gmail.com> <0b14bf39-ed71-b9fb-1998-bd9676466df6@selasky.org> To: freebsd-net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:53:36 -0000 > On 04 Aug 2016, at 20:15, Ryan Stone wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Ben RUBSON = wrote: > But even without RSS, I should be able to go up to 2x40Gbps, don't you = think so ? > Nobody already did this ? >=20 > Try this patch, which should improve performance when multiple TCP = streams are running in parallel over an mlx4_en port: >=20 > https://people.freebsd.org/~rstone/patches/mlxen_counters.diff Thank you very much Ryan. I just tried it, but it does not help :/ Below is the cpuload during bidirectional trafic. We clearly see the 4 CPUs allocated to Mellanox IRQs, the others to = iPerf processes. No improvement if IRQs are spread over the 12 NUMA CPUs, but slightly = less throughput. Note that I get the same results if I only use 2 CPUs for IRQs. 27 processes: 1 running, 26 sleeping CPU 0: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 16.7% system, 0.0% interrupt, 82.2% = idle CPU 1: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 18.9% system, 0.0% interrupt, 80.0% = idle CPU 2: 1.9% user, 0.0% nice, 17.8% system, 0.0% interrupt, 80.4% = idle CPU 3: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 15.2% system, 0.0% interrupt, 83.7% = idle CPU 4: 0.4% user, 0.0% nice, 16.3% system, 0.0% interrupt, 83.3% = idle CPU 5: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 14.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 84.4% = idle CPU 6: 2.6% user, 0.0% nice, 17.4% system, 0.0% interrupt, 80.0% = idle CPU 7: 2.2% user, 0.0% nice, 15.2% system, 0.0% interrupt, 82.6% = idle CPU 8: 1.1% user, 0.0% nice, 3.0% system, 15.9% interrupt, 80.0% = idle CPU 9: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 3.0% system, 32.2% interrupt, 64.8% = idle CPU 10: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 58.9% interrupt, 40.7% = idle CPU 11: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.4% system, 77.4% interrupt, 22.2% = idle CPU 12: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 13: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 14: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 15: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 16: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 17: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 18: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 19: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 20: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 21: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.4% interrupt, 99.6% = idle CPU 22: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle CPU 23: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 0.0% interrupt, 100% = idle=