From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Oct 21 18:44:04 2015 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 51B1BA1AB7E for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:44:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DB0A1F2C for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:44:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-73-231-226-104.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.226.104]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AD21B97D; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:44:03 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Maxim Sobolev Cc: FreeBSD Net Subject: Re: Some MSI are not routed correctly Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 11:31:49 -0700 Message-ID: <206504538.Si4KCGV8IQ@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (FreeBSD/10.2-PRERELEASE; KDE/4.14.3; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <2050066.YiOUntKNB6@ralph.baldwin.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:44:03 -0400 (EDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 18:44:04 -0000 On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 11:29:17 AM Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Yes, I do. However, please note that for some reason they are not using > nearly as much CPU time as the other 4 for some reason. > > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 3 95.3H 28.96% > intr{irq267: igb0:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 1 95.5H 24.41% > intr{irq265: igb0:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K CPU2 2 95.2H 23.73% > intr{irq266: igb0:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 0 95.2H 23.05% > intr{irq264: igb0:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 6 286:37 1.12% > intr{irq271: igb1:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 7 278:05 1.12% > intr{irq272: igb1:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 5 284:26 1.07% > intr{irq270: igb1:que} > 11 root -92 - 0K 1104K WAIT 4 290:41 0.98% > intr{irq269: igb1:que} > > CPU 0: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.9% system, 24.9% interrupt, 74.2% idle > CPU 1: 0.5% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 26.3% interrupt, 73.2% idle > CPU 2: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 1.4% system, 25.4% interrupt, 73.2% idle > CPU 3: 0.0% user, 0.0% nice, 0.5% system, 23.9% interrupt, 75.6% idle > CPU 4: 0.9% user, 0.0% nice, 2.3% system, 2.3% interrupt, 94.4% idle > CPU 5: 1.4% user, 0.0% nice, 4.2% system, 4.2% interrupt, 90.1% idle > CPU 6: 1.4% user, 0.0% nice, 3.8% system, 1.4% interrupt, 93.4% idle > CPU 7: 2.8% user, 0.0% nice, 0.0% system, 3.8% interrupt, 93.4% idle > > 34263 igb0:que 0 > 32308 igb0:que 1 > 35022 igb0:que 2 > 34593 igb0:que 3 > 14931 igb1:que 0 > 13059 igb1:que 1 > 12971 igb1:que 2 > 13032 igb1:que 3 > > So I guess interrupts are routed correctly after all, but for some reason > driver takes some 5 times less time to process it on cpus 4-7 > (per-interrupt). Weird. Are the pps rates the same? It seems like the interrupt rates on igb0 are double those of igb1? -- John Baldwin