Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 15:16:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> To: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cl=E9ment_Hermann_=28nodens=29?= <nodens2099@gmail.com> Subject: Re: High CPU interrupt load on intel I350T4 with igb on 8.3 Message-ID: <1368137807.20874.YahooMailClassic@web121603.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <518BCF2C.3080307@rdtc.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- On Thu, 5/9/13, Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> wrote: > From: Eugene Grosbein <egrosbein@rdtc.ru> > Subject: Re: High CPU interrupt load on intel I350T4 with igb on 8.3 > To: "Barney Cordoba" <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com> > Cc: ""Clément Hermann (nodens)"" <nodens2099@gmail.com>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org > Date: Thursday, May 9, 2013, 12:30 PM > On 09.05.2013 23:25, Barney Cordoba > wrote: > > >> Network device driver is not guilty here, that's > just pf's > >> contention > >> running in igb's context. > >> > >> Eugene Grosbein > > > > They're both at play. Single threadedness aggravates > subsystems that > > have too many lock points. > > > > It can also be "solved" with using 1 queue, because > then you don't > > have 4 queues going into a single thread. > > Again, the problem is within pf(4)'s global lock, not in the > igb(4). > Again, you're wrong. It's not the bottleneck's fault; it's the fault of the multi-threaded code for only working properly when there are no bottlenecks. BC
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1368137807.20874.YahooMailClassic>