From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb  1 12:18:05 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F39106564A;
	Tue,  1 Feb 2011 12:18:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313A38FC0C;
	Tue,  1 Feb 2011 12:18:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD))
	(envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>)
	id 1PkFBL-000HHu-Kg; Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:18:03 +0300
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:18:03 +0300
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: Stefan Lambrev <stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com>
Message-ID: <20110201121803.GT18170@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <20110128143355.GD18170@zxy.spb.ru>
	<22E77EED-6455-4164-9115-BBD359EC8CA6@moneybookers.com>
	<20110128161035.GF18170@zxy.spb.ru>
	<CDBFAB7F-1EBC-4B3A-B2F5-6162DD58A93D@moneybookers.com>
	<4D42F87C.7020909@freebsd.org> <20110128172516.GG18170@zxy.spb.ru>
	<20110129070205.Q7034@besplex.bde.org>
	<20110201113724.GS18170@zxy.spb.ru>
	<8979148D-8F2E-49E3-86EE-41CE6F57CDA4@moneybookers.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8979148D-8F2E-49E3-86EE-41CE6F57CDA4@moneybookers.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>,
	Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Interrupt performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:18:05 -0000

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:07:51PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote:

> > I do some more test and build kernel with KTR.
> > Now I don't think that inetrrupt overhead on FreeBSD weight: I try
> > polling and don't see any difference.
> > 
> > I see many reported by netperf send errors. I found this
> > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1Aice9-0002by-00.
> > 
> > After insert into src/nettest_bsd.c usleep(1000) if ENOBUF I see 53%
> > idle and ./loop 2000000000 "Elapsed 15188006 us" -- this near to linux
> > (Elapsed 14107670 us).
> > 
> > 10% of difference may be by more weight network stack (only 32104
> > ticks from 126136 in interrupt handler and task switching, and 94032
> > -- UDP processing in network stack and passing datagram to driver).
> > May be weight SOCKBUF_LOCK/SOCKBUF_UNLOCK and/or
> > INP_INFO_RUNLOCK/INP_RUNLOCK.
> 
> Try to run with the same network buffers on FreeBSD and Linux.
> I think, the default values in freebsd are much, much lower.

Set large buffers on FreeBSD -- the first that I try.
Also, netperf use setsockopt() and netperf run on linux with same
options (include -s 128K -S 128K). 

> Also in the past ENOBUF was not handled properly in linux.
> 
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/AvoidingLinuxisms - Do not rely on Linux-specific socket behaviour. In particular, default socket buffer sizes are different (call setsockopt() with SO_SNDBUF and SO_RCVBUF), and while Linux's send() blocks when the socket buffer is full, FreeBSD's will fail and set ENOBUFS in errno.

Yes, about ENOBUFS with udp socket I told.
And this behaviour (block on udp socket send) in Solaris too.
I don't know what behaviour is right.