Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:48:11 +0200 From: Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dev.bce.X.com_no_buffers increasing and packet loss Message-ID: <E1NpEmB-000HID-HK@clue.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20100309221240.GR1311@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <20100309221240.GR1311@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <20100305210435.GF14818@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <20100305184046.GD14818@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <20100305175639.GB14818@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <E1NnVaT-0003Ft-3p@clue.co.za> <E1Nnc4d-0003mB-6e@clue.co.za> <E1Nne0Q-0003uZ-OR@clue.co.za> <E1Nnesz-00040L-AQ@clue.co.za> <E1NoeCu-0006P9-12@clue.co.za> <E1NozXP-000GGH-T9@clue.co.za> <E1Np7Ok-000Gpl-FE@clue.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 11:55:30PM +0200, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > I set the RX as high as 512 in 64 quanta but it made little difference > > to the interrupt rate. At times where we experience the packet > > loss and com_no_buffers increases, the interrupt rate on between 1 > > and 3 of the 4 bce interfaces fell from about 3200/s to 130/s. > > > > BD chain is just one of parameters. bce(4) controllers also provide > more advanced features that fine control interrupt moderation(TX/RX > ticks). It's hard to explain all the details so you may want to > read public data sheet of bce(4). Thanks. I'll have a read over that. I meant to state that above that whenever the interrupt rate on a controller (or several) falls off, the interrupt CPU usage climbs from about 4% to about 20%. So it seems like something is happening on host that jams up interrupt processing. Ian -- Ian Freislich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1NpEmB-000HID-HK>