Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 17:00:23 +0000 From: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dynamic Ticks/HZ Message-ID: <5097F0A7.90408@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20121105165748.GA13098@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <509758B8.1000409@rewt.org.uk> <CACYV=-HwJ1j2-zDtCtuGNKzdFRJhPsZm6vtFXAVyPSabCXvFEQ@mail.gmail.com> <50975F6F.6010907@rewt.org.uk> <CACYV=-Ef5ij7%2BgqDV9oS3xRyD6Yy2mqDyKqqUZZQ-KsWb_3C3A@mail.gmail.com> <5097898C.9080109@rewt.org.uk> <CAFMmRNwR_XxjnRZvxqew77qNnOTGWrRQnhJkg4u2berL8VCVtw@mail.gmail.com> <20121105163654.GA12870@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <5097E880.8010001@rewt.org.uk> <20121105165748.GA13098@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:25:36PM +0000, Joe Holden wrote: >> Luigi Rizzo wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 08:11:41AM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> doh, running kernel wasn't as GENERIC as I thought it was, looks like >>>>> device polling not only breaks dynamic ticks but also reduces rx ability >>>>> significantly, exactly 150,000 pps per 1000hz on igb versus 650,000 >>>>> without >>>>> >>>>> Is this a known issue? (and if device polling isn't as useful as it once >>>>> was, should it be removed?) >>>>> >>>> Device polling on modern multiqueue NICs isn't very useful because you're >>>> limited to a single thread for handling packets. I have a patch that >>>> fixes >>>> this that I've let fall by the wayside. >>> the 150,000 is result of the combination of the default value of >>> sysctl kern.polling.burst_max and kern.polling.idle_poll=0 >>> (i think this is the default value for the latter). >>> >>> The 150 was sized for the peak pps on a 100Mbit/s interface, >>> back in 2001. You should at least be able to raise the number >>> and see what kind of throughput you can achieve. >>> >>> This said, modern nics also have interrupt moderation so you >>> don't really need polling. >>> >>> cheers >>> luigi >> Hi Luigi, >> >> This makes sense, am I likely to achieve better throughput (in the >> forwarding path at this point) with netisr rather than polling, >> especially as mentioned above the igb does indeed have multiple queues >> for rx? > > at 1Gbit/s you probably don't need multiqueue (I am actually surpised > you can only do 650kpps, but perhaps because you are using ipfw and > not just doing plain forwarding ?) > No ipfw/dummynet (yet), I've been testing by using netblast, may just be tx limit of this machine - rebuilding with netmap so I can use pkt-gen >> On another note, is netmap usable in the forwarding context at all as it >> is rather awesome > > It depends on what you need to do. If you have a v4/v6 router you > won't see any advantage (at the moment; there is some work in the > pipeline but probably it won't be available before spring). > > If you just need to implement a firewall to protect the internal > network then it is another story and you can use the ipfw on netmap > that I posted in august. > > cheers > luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5097F0A7.90408>