From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 1 12:23:35 2011 Return-Path: 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 571F0106564A; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:23:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stefan.lambrev@moneybookers.com) Received: from g1.moneybookers.com (g1.moneybookers.com [217.18.249.148]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058C98FC1B; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from g1.moneybookers.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by g1.moneybookers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C06D3272C51; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:23:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from jailbay5-inferno.sf.moneybookers.net (jailbay5-inferno.sf.moneybookers.net [10.128.2.69]) by g1.moneybookers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E686A272C8E; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:23:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from hater.sf.moneybookers.net (hater.sf.moneybookers.net [10.129.23.125]) by jailbay5-inferno.sf.moneybookers.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92F83612387; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 13:23:32 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Stefan Lambrev In-Reply-To: <20110201121803.GT18170@zxy.spb.ru> Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 14:23:32 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20110128143355.GD18170@zxy.spb.ru> <22E77EED-6455-4164-9115-BBD359EC8CA6@moneybookers.com> <20110128161035.GF18170@zxy.spb.ru> <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> <20110201121803.GT18170@zxy.spb.ru> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_FRT_STOCK2, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on g1.sf.moneybookers.net Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer , Bruce Evans Subject: Re: Interrupt performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:23:35 -0000 On Feb 1, 2011, at 2:18 PM, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:07:51PM +0200, Stefan Lambrev wrote: >=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> I see many reported by netperf send errors. I found this >>> http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1Aice9-0002by-00. >>>=20 >>> 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). >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> Try to run with the same network buffers on FreeBSD and Linux. >> I think, the default values in freebsd are much, much lower. >=20 > 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).=20 >=20 >> Also in the past ENOBUF was not handled properly in linux. >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. Well, according to the man pages in linux and fbsd the bsd behavior is = right. I was looking into this long time ago with some red hat linux. -- Best Wishes, Stefan Lambrev ICQ# 24134177