From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 15 08:42:53 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CBCE10656D0;
	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:42:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-yw0-f54.google.com (mail-yw0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.213.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343618FC12;
	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:42:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yhfs35 with SMTP id s35so1813305yhf.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=YQ1563J4cHHvMPtUpvOgdF2gnrhosYIddIwEojjX5lk=;
	b=I9Fz+8AAZTbnbmfvk37DxAxIXrQ79WS4IemeWD4O642f/d7fukR63p6H1+pDHZifc0
	GZke3+6OlbJuWJtijnBBKu6T44Lx4Fcj1nRIllU6h9zPcjrylU0QTxKyaZDC4Uye5tke
	ULnaknAbVB1gbebMCFKJRt4yqIgrs6B+R7j3XanGLWnc+8446PZiR6SRe42tzhZ3N/oF
	iSkvbIGGT3ECEkzyk7EvBU7iuLfDJWVJ0qY/5b45mSAHSnnkN2dMfWmTiamAnCfOCLMS
	LDP04hnIzaRgdqMTTBtR06egMwty5ZSQyoL2TevXp7ujRPOF0GWOelCY1Boy/vaB5AZn
	Zhqg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.194.165 with SMTP id hx5mr16422290igc.56.1345020172050;
	Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.176.200 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <42630017.20120815122119@serebryakov.spb.ru>
References: <157941699.20120815004542@serebryakov.spb.ru>
	<42630017.20120815122119@serebryakov.spb.ru>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:42:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGH67wTxgaAfhDA0F4Z_=ouvPYLWw28MZ7PBLm0Du+KssFNLDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
To: lev@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a
	bottlneck?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:42:53 -0000

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Hello, Lev.
> You wrote 15 =C1=D7=C7=D5=D3=D4=C1 2012 =C7., 0:45:42:
>
> LS>  Answer looks trivial: router CPU is bottleneck. But here is one addi=
tional
> LS> detail: `top' never shows less than 50% of idle when torrents are
> LS> active. And `idle' time with torrents traffic is ALWAYS is higher tha=
n
> LS> without them, but with WiFi traffic.
>   Ok,  additional  information:  it  seems,  that  `top'  is liar when
>  POLLING is enabled for em0 and vr1 NICs. I'm turned POLLING off, and
>  speeds are the same, but `idle' is no more 50%, it is `0%' when
>  gateway is overloaded.
>
>  But i still feezes under load with ULE. It looks like ULE is broken.

    Not sure what card you have, but the lem style e1000 cards were
changed recently (r238953) to use poll a bit differently. Try setting
"hw.em.use_legacy_irq=3D1" as a tunable and see what happens or remove
DEVICE_POLLING altogether?
    The clock and scheduling code has also been changed recently
(r239185, r239194, r239183, r239157, r239036, r239013). See if
reverting any or all of the beforementioned commits helps improve
performance for you.
HTH!
-Garrett