From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 8 08:08:24 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E681416A41B for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 08:08:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fabien.thomas@netasq.com) Received: from netasq.netasq.com (netasq.netasq.com [213.30.137.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A56CD13C459 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 08:08:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fabien.thomas@netasq.com) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (unknown [10.0.0.126]) by netasq.netasq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFCE81B6C0; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 10:08:22 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <46E1D937.8040600@freebsd.org> References: <09k3e3d46bb5br07r883sdokn0j7qlkp0c@4ax.com> <46E1D937.8040600@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <35F0020D-5D6F-4FE0-A787-6D8E5DE59B68@netasq.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Fabien THOMAS Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 10:08:13 +0200 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Cc: Andre Oppermann , Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: new version of polling for FreeBSD 6.x 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: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:08:25 -0000 Le 8 sept. 07 =E0 01:05, Andre Oppermann a =E9crit : > Mike Tancsa wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:12:06 +0200, in sentex.lists.freebsd.net you >> wrote: >>> After many years of good services we will stop using FreeBSD 4.x :) >>> During my performance regression tests under FreeBSD 6.2 i've =20 >>> found that polling has lower performance than interrupt. >>> To solve that issue i've rewritten the core of polling to be more =20= >>> SMP ready. >> Hi, >> This is really interesting work! Reading the pdf file, it >> seems forwarding performance on 6 and 7 is still much lower than >> RELENG_4 ? is that correct ? > > Haven't tested RELENG_4 performance in a controlled environment and > thus can't answer the question directly. However using fastforward > on 6 and 7 is key to good performance. Without it you're stuck at > some 150-200kpps, perhaps 300kpps. With it you get to 500-800kpps. Using net.isr.direct is the key success and can get much better =20 forwarding rate (intermediate queue kill the performance). i aggree than using fastforwarding gets another big step because =20 there is a lot less code than on the IP stack: FreeBSD 6.2 using fastforward on 64bytes packets (L3 Mb/s): pollng 1CPU: 156 pollng 2CPU: 123 intr: 144 pollng 1CPU fastfwd: 221 pollng 2CPU fastfwd: 270 intr fastfwd: 211 Fabien > > --=20 > Andre > >> ---Mike >>> You can find a summary of all my tests and the source code at =20 >>> the following address: >>> http://www.netasq.com/opensource/pollng-rev1-freebsd.tgz >>> >>> Feel free to ask more detailed information if necessary and =20 >>> report any bugs / comments. >>> >>> Fabien >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-=20 >>> unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> Mike Tancsa, Sentex communications http://www.sentex.net >> Providing Internet Access since 1994 >> mike@sentex.net, (http://www.tancsa.com) >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-=20 >> unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >