From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 26 14:52:35 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A69FC16A4CE
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:52:35 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1138F43D41
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:52:35 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from don@sandvine.com)
Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
	id <PAC3RJ97>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:52:34 -0400
Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9433@mail.sandvine.com>
From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
To: 'James' <haesu@towardex.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:52:23 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: device polling takes more CPU hits??
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:52:35 -0000

From: James [mailto:haesu@towardex.com]
> Hi all,
> 
 ...

> 
> Any idea why device polling is kind of having... negative 
> impact? Is this b/c
> I have SMP compiled on a box that really doesn't have two 
> cpu's?? Is SMP+APIC_IO
> support even required for HTT use?

I would post the output of 'sysctl kern.polling', its likely
some of the tuning there is insufficient.
What do you have HZ set to (sysctl kern.clockrate)? I would
probably have it set to ~1000.
You will want 'machdep.cpu_idle_hlt=1'.

--don