Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 04:31:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> To: Larry Baird <lab@gta.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Paul Thornton <prt@prt.org> Subject: Re: Polling and kern.polling.idle_poll Message-ID: <117993.46390.qm@web63907.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- On Thu, 7/2/09, Larry Baird <lab@gta.com> wrote: > From: Larry Baird <lab@gta.com> > Subject: Re: Polling and kern.polling.idle_poll > To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> > Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Paul Thornton" <prt@prt.org> > Date: Thursday, July 2, 2009, 11:31 AM > > Curious as to why you don't > simply lay out the $40 for a modern ethernet card that > doesn't need polling to work well? > These are low end embedded boxs. No way to > upgrade. But in actuallity > they have modern (fxp) NICS. From our testing, live > lock is a real issue > for gateways receiving lots of network traffic. > Polling prevents live > lock. There are few applications where dropping buckets of packets is preferable to losing the keyboard. If "livelock is a problem", then your systems are too slow for the task. Livelock can easity be tuned with the "work" parameter. fxp drivers are hard coded to (I think) 6000 ints per second, so its not rocket science to set your tuning parameters to whatever the system can handle before entering a livelock scenario. In reality, interrupt moderation is the equivalent of polling 6000 times per second, in the case of fxp. You wouldn't want to set hz to 6000 as you substantially increase system overhead. Moderation is a much more efficient way of managing your ethernet loads, because the "polls" are only directed at the driver, and if you dont have traffic then you don't need to get polled. Barney
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?117993.46390.qm>