From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 10 22:21:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: 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 1F0D616A407; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:21:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from smarthost2.sentex.ca (smarthost2.sentex.ca [205.211.164.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AB243D55; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:21:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by smarthost2.sentex.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAAML6ht044474; Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:21:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from mdt-xp.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.13.6/8.13.3) with ESMTP id kAAML6ol028630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:21:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <200611102221.kAAML6ol028630@lava.sentex.ca> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:21:12 -0500 To: "Jack Vogel" From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0611101400w5b8cef40ob84ed6de181f3e2c@mail.gmail.co m> References: <2a41acea0611081719h31be096eu614d2f2325aff511@mail.gmail.com> <200611091536.kA9FaltD018819@lava.sentex.ca> <45534E76.6020906@samsco.org> <200611092200.kA9M0q1E020473@lava.sentex.ca> <200611102004.kAAK4iO9027778@lava.sentex.ca> <2a41acea0611101400w5b8cef40ob84ed6de181f3e2c@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: freebsd-net , Scott Long , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:21:13 -0000 At 05:00 PM 11/10/2006, Jack Vogel wrote: >On 11/10/06, Mike Tancsa wrote: >> >>Some more tests. I tried again with what was committed to today's >>RELENG_6. I am guessing its pretty well the same patch. Polling is >>the only way to avoid livelock at a high pps rate. Does anyone know >>of any simple tools to measure end to end packet loss ? Polling will >>end up dropping some packets and I want to be able to compare. Same >>hardware from the previous post. > >The commit WAS the last patch I posted. SO, making sure I understood you, >you are saying that POLLING is doing better than FAST_INTR, or only >better than the legacy code that went in with my merge? Hi, The last set of tests I posted are ONLY with what is in today's RELENG_6-- i.e. the latest commit. I did a few variations on the driver-- first with #define EM_FAST_INTR 1 in if_em.c one without and one with polling in the kernel. With a decent packet rate passing through, the box will lockup. Not sure if I am just hitting the limits of the PCIe bus, or interrupt moderation is not kicking in, or this is a case of "Doctor, it hurts when I send a lot of packets through"... "Well, dont do that" Using polling prevents the lockup, but it will of course drop packets. This is for firewalls with a fairly high bandwidth rate, as well as I need it to be able to survive a decent DDoS attack. I am not looking for 1Mpps, but something more than 100Kpps ---Mike