From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 26 20:17:40 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 53FE716A4CE
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:17:40 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ylpvm43.prodigy.net (ylpvm43-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.74])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD10143D45
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:17:39 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from kbyanc@posi.net)
Received: from gateway.posi.net (adsl-63-201-93-86.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
	[63.201.93.86])i6QKHcj2002589;	Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:17:41 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by gateway.posi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 649796A04AE; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:18:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net>
To: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
In-Reply-To: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9435@mail.sandvine.com>
Message-ID: <20040726131235.N74984@gateway.posi.net>
References: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9435@mail.sandvine.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: 'James' <haesu@towardex.com>
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 20:17:40 -0000

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Don Bowman wrote:

> kern.polling.burst: 1000
> kern.polling.each_burst: 80
> kern.polling.burst_max: 1000
> kern.polling.idle_poll: 1
> kern.polling.poll_in_trap: 0
> kern.polling.user_frac: 5
> kern.polling.reg_frac: 120
> kern.polling.short_ticks: 29
> kern.polling.lost_polls: 55004
> kern.polling.pending_polls: 0
> kern.polling.residual_burst: 0
> kern.polling.handlers: 4
> kern.polling.enable: 1
> kern.polling.phase: 0
> kern.polling.suspect: 50690
> kern.polling.stalled: 25

  Out of curiousity, what sort of testing did you do to arrive at these
settings?  I did some testing a while back with a SmartBits box pumping
packets through a FreeBSD 2.8Ghz box configured to route between two em
gigabit interfaces; I found that changing the burst_max and each_burst
parameters had almost no effect on throughput (maximum 1% difference).
That was completely contrary to expectations and would love to hear how I
could improve my test setup to see how changing those values are supposed
to affect performance.

  Thanks,

  Kelly

--
Kelly Yancey  -  kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org}  -  kelly@nttmcl.com
"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they
 are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom."
	-- Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810. ME 12:417