Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:11:41 -0500 From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> To: Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Dynamic Ticks/HZ Message-ID: <CAFMmRNwR_XxjnRZvxqew77qNnOTGWrRQnhJkg4u2berL8VCVtw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5097898C.9080109@rewt.org.uk> References: <509758B8.1000409@rewt.org.uk> <CACYV=-HwJ1j2-zDtCtuGNKzdFRJhPsZm6vtFXAVyPSabCXvFEQ@mail.gmail.com> <50975F6F.6010907@rewt.org.uk> <CACYV=-Ef5ij7%2BgqDV9oS3xRyD6Yy2mqDyKqqUZZQ-KsWb_3C3A@mail.gmail.com> <5097898C.9080109@rewt.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Joe Holden <lists@rewt.org.uk> wrote: > doh, running kernel wasn't as GENERIC as I thought it was, looks like > device polling not only breaks dynamic ticks but also reduces rx ability > significantly, exactly 150,000 pps per 1000hz on igb versus 650,000 without > > Is this a known issue? (and if device polling isn't as useful as it once > was, should it be removed?) > Device polling on modern multiqueue NICs isn't very useful because you're limited to a single thread for handling packets. I have a patch that fixes this that I've let fall by the wayside.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNwR_XxjnRZvxqew77qNnOTGWrRQnhJkg4u2berL8VCVtw>