Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 16:38:57 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Subject: Re: Interesting data on network interrupt - part II Message-ID: <200604051638.59800.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20060405003358.GA83600@tin.it> References: <20060405003358.GA83600@tin.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 20:33, Paolo Pisati wrote: > Hi, > > i updated my work on interrupt profiling with sone new > experiments. > > In total we have now: > > -FreeBSD 4 PIC (no asm part) > -FreeBSD 7 APIC > -FreeBSD 7 PIC > -FreeBSD 7 PREE APIC > -FreeBSD 7 APIC JHB > > Some quick comments: > > -PIC is much slower in masking interrupt (7k in PIC vs 3k in APIC) > -PREE let new thread save less than 500 ticks of 'queue' while > preempted threads are often resumed after a lot > -JHB patch shaved 2.5k ticks in interrupt masking op > > For graphs, data and more comments: > > http://mercurio.sm.dsi.unimi.it/~pisati/interrupt/ I'll commit the patch then. :) One thing you might try to do to better measure the effects of preemption is to generate kernel work so that the bge interrupts occur while the current thread is in the kernel rather than in userland. In that case preemption should provide much lower latency for interrupt handlers, as w/o preemption, an interrupt in kernel mode won't run the ithread until either curthread blocks or returns to userland. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200604051638.59800.jhb>