From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 25 20:04:16 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E95964 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:04:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C281755 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 20:04:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e11so1691952wgh.1 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:04:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=W/3J8lk/bhvDq32ngsL7O9ItBKfF+k2cjb6v2nB7n5U=; b=VhG99kUfqQWZPuvNERj6p+WULmTP22yrlbGeUf2uMqOy22keTTWgASyoRktaKGfw6A B9dCUOIOMXopaN7TLhRFr2qiWMZmrpoUXHoHwuHHN9/UwtnPiGypA1CAs2QiVt8Mg5kt 5duZzgLWUgH3sN35xHsAt+JobdVyuBCyaWK3nKjT9nBkFpcWcVqRl/4ggOJoW+2UbgEX JwrdFop8c2l/VM8gxqsg0fF1Vypt5qNIjLcmurFn1bwxBskhthjweodpcM5WJhP65SsK tLC1ZKHw54mXbki+bHOXTWArqfEzC3z9XSVVLhBsToR7eB7j1CUAXU2P11UGI0d1O4Na GmBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.149.200 with SMTP id uc8mr45798wib.3.1366920255030; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.217.58.138 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:04:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51797E3F.1030400@soe.ucsc.edu> References: <5176E5C1.9090601@soe.ucsc.edu> <201304240134.22740.vegeta@tuxpowered.net> <517974DA.5090809@soe.ucsc.edu> <51797E3F.1030400@soe.ucsc.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:04:14 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: vCbEIXRwvgiklEJopnW2h1Ly5xE Message-ID: Subject: Re: pf performance? From: Adrian Chadd To: Erich Weiler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 25 Apr 2013 20:04:16 -0000 If it contends on the global pf lock, you're short of luck. There may be some hack to enable in sysctl that defers part of the packet processing into a taskqueue, but I dont' know if that's for general IP processing or just socket iO processing. One of the network stack peeps will know. ADrian On 25 April 2013 12:04, Erich Weiler wrote: >> ... please ask the pfsense guys to either migrate to -9, or backport >> the -head pf (with the locking fixes!) to -8 for that. >> >> Otherwise you're very likely going to be wasting time on something you >> can't really push that much harder. > > > I can ask for that (and will soon, likely), but to play with my current > setup in the meantime, can we logically say that if I have 4 cores, and one > interrupt queue is assigned to each core, and under I load I see each core > (via "top -P") at 100% in interrupt usage, would it be safe to say that more > cores (with additional interrupt queues accordingly) would mean more > interrupts overall being processed, which would mean more pps?