lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:41 -0200
From:	Breno Leitao <leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	rick.jones2@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000 performance issue in 4 simultaneous links

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 17:48 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Breno Leitao a écrit :
> > Take a look at the interrupt table this time: 
> >
> > io-dolphins:~/leitao # cat /proc/interrupts  | grep eth[1]*[67]
> > 277:         15    1362450         13         14         13         14         15         18   XICS      Level     eth6
> > 278:         12         13    1348681         19         13         15         10         11   XICS      Level     eth7
> > 323:         11         18         17    1348426         18         11         11         13   XICS      Level     eth16
> > 324:         12         16         11         19    1402709         13         14         11   XICS      Level     eth17
> >
> >
> >   
> If your machine has 8 cpus, then your vmstat output shows a bottleneck :)
> 
> (100/8 = 12.5), so I guess one of your CPU is full

Well, if I run top while running the test, I see this load distributed
among the CPUs, mainly those that had a NIC IRC bonded. Take a look:

Tasks: 133 total,   2 running, 130 sleeping,   0 stopped,   1 zombie
Cpu0  :  0.3%us, 19.5%sy,  0.0%ni, 73.5%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  6.6%st
Cpu1  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 75.1%id,  0.0%wa,  0.7%hi, 24.3%si,  0.0%st
Cpu2  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 73.1%id,  0.0%wa,  0.7%hi, 26.2%si,  0.0%st
Cpu3  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 76.1%id,  0.0%wa,  0.7%hi, 23.3%si,  0.0%st
Cpu4  :  0.0%us,  0.3%sy,  0.0%ni, 70.4%id,  0.7%wa,  0.3%hi, 28.2%si,  0.0%st
Cpu5  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st
Cpu6  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni, 99.7%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.3%si,  0.0%st
Cpu7  :  0.0%us,  0.0%sy,  0.0%ni,100.0%id,  0.0%wa,  0.0%hi,  0.0%si,  0.0%st

Note that this average scenario doesn't change during the entire
benchmarking test.

Thanks!

-- 
Breno Leitao <leitao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ