From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 9 16:41:25 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7971065670 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:41:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pyunyh@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com (mail-ew0-f224.google.com [209.85.219.224]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760958FC13 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:41:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so385927ewy.33 for ; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:received:from:date:to:cc :subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=bDP9c9Zwb1A+n4LWbAQwaan8ZPtTDASQ6h3Ga+8o6CI=; b=jvDFT2a8amQTlEMwfeYP6BA/uYIchM5DRaQvBU7jMPomhcdh9/V8+cSl3qeO5jaXu3 +4XggqF2tg7K0F5tGHPnZZ2gZTYJaZ5loflg8XJrfND/YUMXBUh6+rOnHRK6r3BkE+5f h0RjUxWdczXRAi3RNUjoQEpg6jX4C6mGvSHus= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=Yq7aU5dpuS8IYFVFliOxnFh2m2YEGyXDSQRCqeSArCqZkoj3aTdf3D60wKihBPg47L /cVN+166wFmE1wBUXVmistKX79gWxL/Ny94T/lzg66n9FkpwVlpl0vTFt7ScVA28CglS EsASeYv61qtu1vyOO4Via25Lq45grf8aOdndo= Received: by 10.213.67.207 with SMTP id s15mr514953ebi.76.1270831283373; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pyunyh@gmail.com ([174.35.1.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 14sm854746ewy.10.2010.04.09.09.41.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:41:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pyunyh@gmail.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:41:15 -0700 From: Pyun YongHyeon Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:41:15 -0700 To: Mike Tancsa Message-ID: <20100409164115.GB1085@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <201004081313.o38DD4JM041821@lava.sentex.ca> <7.1.0.9.0.20100408091756.10652be0@sentex.net> <201004081446.o38EkU7h042296@lava.sentex.ca> <20100408181741.GI5734@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <201004081831.o38IVR3s043434@lava.sentex.ca> <20100408205626.GN5734@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <201004082105.o38L5DCH044187@lava.sentex.ca> <20100408230750.GR5734@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <201004091317.o39DHFEl049965@lava.sentex.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201004091317.o39DHFEl049965@lava.sentex.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jack Vogel Subject: Re: em driver regression X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: pyunyh@gmail.com List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:41:25 -0000 On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:17:07AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 07:07 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is > >> Hartwell, 82574. > >> > > > >Thanks for the info. > > > >Mike, here is updated patch. Now UDP bulk TX transfer performance > >recovered a lot(about 890Mbps) but it still shows bad numbers > >compared to other controllers. For example, bce(4) shows about > >958Mbps for the same load. > >During the testing I found a strong indication of packet reordering > >issue of drbr interface. If I forcibly change to use single TX > >queue, em(4) got 950Mbps as it used to be. > > > >Jack, as we talked about possible drbr issue with igb(4), UDP > >transfer seems to suffer from packet reordering issue here. Can we > >make em(4)/igb(4) use single TX queue until we solve drbr interface > >issue? Given that only one em(4) controller supports multiqueue, > >dropping multiqueue support for em(4) does not look bad to me. > > No watchdog errors over night. I wonder if the issue was due to > 100Mb, or the patch from current fixed it. I will try today with the > new patch below! I am guessing the rejection was due to the RX/TX fix ? > The patch was generated against latest HEAD. This includes Jack's latest fix too so it may not be applied cleanly on stable/8. I think you can use em(4) in HEAD.