Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:19:11 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: khatfield@socllc.net Cc: Barney Cordoba <barney_cordoba@yahoo.com>, Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD boxes as a 'router'... Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmok8Ybdi%2BY8ZguMTKC7%2BF5=OxVDog27i4UgY-s3MCZkGcQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <832757660.33924.1353460119408@238ae4dab3b4454b88aea4d9f7c372c1.nuevasync.com> References: <1353448328.76219.YahooMailClassic@web121602.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <E1F4816E-676C-4630-9FA1-817F737D007D@netgate.com> <50AC08EC.8070107@mu.org> <832757660.33924.1353460119408@238ae4dab3b4454b88aea4d9f7c372c1.nuevasync.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ok, so since people are talking about it, and i've been knee deep in at least the older intel gige interrupt moderation - at maximum pps, how exactly is the interrupt moderation giving you a livelock scenario? The biggest benefit I found when doing some forwarding work a few years ago was to write a little daemon that actually sat there and watched the interrupt rates and packet drop rates per-interface - and then tuned the interrupt moderation parameters to suit. So at the highest pps rates I wasn't swamped with interrupts. I think polling here is hiding some poor choices in driver design and network stack design.. adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmok8Ybdi%2BY8ZguMTKC7%2BF5=OxVDog27i4UgY-s3MCZkGcQ>