Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:41:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Network Stack Locking Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040525143352.91908C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20040525113208.A74130@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:20:49AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote: > ... > > :Actually, this was the specific point I was making also :-). The question > > :I was asking was about the depth of the message queues between protocol > > :stack layers in actual measurements -- are you observing substantial > > :coallescing between layers as a result of the queues at this point? I'm > ... > > It should also be noted that since today's processors are so damn fast, > > actually maxing out the cpu before maxing out the PCI bus(es), at least > > on a standard workstation, is difficult. > > that's where the soekris comes handy :) (yes i understand that much of > the issues here are related to SMP, but there lot of evidence that a > non-smp 5.x kernel is significantly slower than the equivalent 4.x code, > even on heavy network i/o loads, so there is certainly something to > clean up there too). Happily, I'm well endowed with old and crufty hardware when it comes to UP. That said, it's hard to find a nice middle ground with SMP -- even relatively slow boxes can typically can max out 32-bit PCI, so you need to go with 64-bit if you want to not have that be the bottleneck for gig-E. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040525143352.91908C-100000>