From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 23 16:11:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1466A16A435 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:11:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (66-23-211-162.clients.speedfactory.net [66.23.211.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5320743D5C for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:11:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2NGBaQi029117; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:11:38 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:12:24 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060322122906.A41691@xorpc.icir.org> <200603221545.13769.jhb@freebsd.org> <20060323003228.GA1983@tin.it> In-Reply-To: <20060323003228.GA1983@tin.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200603231112.26646.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1353/Thu Mar 23 05:23:33 2006 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: Subject: Re: interesting(?) data on network interrupt servicing X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:11:42 -0000 On Wednesday 22 March 2006 19:32, Paolo Pisati wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 03:45:12PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > This is going out to the I/O APIC and writing a bit to mask the > > interrupt until the handler has run. Is he using a kernel that > > has SMP enabled? If so, turning SMP off might make things > > slightly better. > > 7.x: > SMP is on, PREEMPTION if off You probably want preemption on to minimize latency. If this is a UP machine, you should turn SMP off. It might be interesting to compare using 7.x without APIC as well, since you are not using APIC on 4.x. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org