From owner-freebsd-current Fri Oct 12 1: 5:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877E037B40A for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 01:05:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 5744A81D01; Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:05:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:05:19 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mike Silbersack Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some interrupt coalescing tests Message-ID: <20011012030519.N59854@elvis.mu.org> References: <20000101045805.G4587-200000@patrocles.silby.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20000101045805.G4587-200000@patrocles.silby.com>; from silby@silby.com on Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 05:14:05AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Mike Silbersack [011012 01:30] wrote: > > Well, I've been watching everyone argue about the value of interrupt > coalescing in the net drivers, so I decided to port terry's patch to 4.4 & > -current to see what the results are. The patch included applies cleanly > to 4.4's if_dc, and will apply to -current with a one line change. > Whitespace is horrible, I copied and pasted the original patch, used patch > -l, etc. > > The test setup I used was as follows: > Duron 600, PNIC, running -current > Celeron 450, ADMtek tulip-clone, running -stable > > The network is 100mbps, switched. To simulate load, I used a syn flooder > aimed at an unused port. icmp/rst response limiting was enabled. Actually, you might want to leave that on, it will generate more load. > > With the -current box attacking the -stable box, I was able to notice a > slight drop in interrupts/second with the patch applied. The number of > packets was ~57000/second. > > Before: ~46000 ints/sec, 57-63% processor usage due to interrupts. > After: ~38000 ints/sec, 50-60% processor usage due to interrupts. > > In both cases, the box felt responsive. You need to get real hardware to run these tests, obviously you aren't saturating your line. I would suspect a better test would be to see how many pps you get can at the point where cpu utlization reaches 100%. Basically start at a base of 60,000pps, and see how many more it takes to drive them both to 100%. Even your limited tests show a mean improvement of something like 10%. 10% isn't earth shattering, but it is a signifigant improvement. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message