Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:18:31 +0200 From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance problem using Intel X520-DA2 Message-ID: <D048333F-BF93-4A2E-8081-F5AC39C09B35@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <jfoqr8$mld$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <a231a44c6c803075c7b456a6189ff6ce@leon.pl> <CAFOYbcksi7KBpEjH=-hHEoTr35ynwYk98Ushw9nzR27H%2BGVBFA@mail.gmail.com> <jfmbam$37c$1@dough.gmane.org> <909994c3cdd84cb2c47ff8037c23e142@leon.pl> <jfoqr8$mld$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 25, 2012, at 1:59 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 24/01/2012 17:53, Marcin Markowski wrote:
>> On 24.01.2012 14:22, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Marcin
>>>> Markowski<mmarkowski@leon.pl>wrote:
>>>=20
>>>>> (on 9.0 we can see also kernel thread named {ix0 que} using 100% =
CPU),
>>>=20
>>>>> hw.ixgbe.num_queues=3D16
>>>=20
>>> If there really are 16 hardware queues, shouldn't there be 16 kernel
>>> threads for queue processing?
>>=20
>> There are 16 threads, but only one of them consumes 100% CPU and the =
others
>> do not use more than 5% CPU:
>>=20
>> http://pastebin.com/BWDWh8kW
>=20
> You need Jack to confirm it but this looks like a serious problem / =
bottleneck. It just shouldn't be like that (if the test is exactly the =
same).
>=20
Is this by any chance non-IP traffic (or encapsulated in some way).
I remember similar thread : =
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/igb-ixgbe-RSS-RX-queues-for-non-IP-tr=
affic-td4778961.html
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D048333F-BF93-4A2E-8081-F5AC39C09B35>