Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 10 Apr 2019 01:09:29 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        net@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 237072] netgraph(4): performance issue [on HardenedBSD]?
Message-ID:  <bug-237072-7501-r0F7H1pYmW@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-237072-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-237072-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237072

--- Comment #14 from Larry Rosenman <ler@FreeBSD.org> ---
More information from Austin Robertson (aus on github):
Hey Larry,

I hope you don't mind me emailing you, but I've seen you've been posting ab=
out
a similar issue I experienced in regards to netgraph performance with pfatt=
. (I
had seen some freebsd.org bug report referrals in my Github repo's traffic
analytics)

In my experience, the netgraph configuration in pfatt can max out a single =
core
when reaching gigabit speeds. In some cases, the single core performance of=
 the
process can handle it. In other cases, it cannot and speed suffers.

In the case of another user, their C2758 CPU wasn't getting full gigabit
performance. Upgrading to a beefier E3-1230v6 got them the full line speeds.

When being throttled by the CPU, I see a high percentage of interrupts
(relative to core count) against the NIC via systat -vmstat. I suspect that=
 the
extra packet processing isn't hardware accelerated by the NIC and being han=
dled
in kernel space by netgraph.=20

BSD and performance aren't my expertise, and you seem to be more savvy in t=
hose
areas. I thought I'd pass along my experience. If you come up with a soluti=
on,
I'd definitely like to here it!

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-237072-7501-r0F7H1pYmW>