[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080220075054.GB3885@ff.dom.local>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:50:54 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Badalian Vyacheslav <slavon@...telecom.ru>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000: Question about polling
On 18-02-2008 10:18, Badalian Vyacheslav wrote:
> Hello all.
Hi,
> Interesting think:
>
> Have PC that do NAT. Bandwidth about 600 mbs.
>
> Have 4 CPU (2xCoRe 2 DUO "HT OFF" 3.2 HZ).
>
> irqbalance in kernel is off.
>
> nat2 ~ # cat /proc/irq/217/smp_affinity
> 00000001
> nat2 ~ # cat /proc/irq/218/smp_affinity
> 00000003
>
> Load SI on CPU0 and CPU1 is about 90%
>
> Good... try do
> echo ffffffff > /proc/irq/217/smp_affinity
> echo ffffffff > /proc/irq/218/smp_affinity
>
> Get 100% SI at CPU0
>
> Question Why?
I think you should show here /proc/interrupts in all these cases.
>
> I listen that if use IRQ from 1 netdevice to 1 CPU i can get 30%
> perfomance... but i have 4 CPU... i must get more perfomance if i cat
> "ffffffff" to smp_affinity.
>
> picture looks liks this:
> 0-3 CPU get over 50% SI.... bandwith up.... 55% SI... bandwith up...
> 100% SI on CPU0....
>
> I remember patch to fix problem like it... patched function
> e1000_clean... kernel on pc have this patch (2.6.24-rc7-git2)... e1000
> driver work much better (i up to 1.5-2x bandwidth before i get 100% SI),
> but i think that it not get 100% that it can =)
If some patch works for you, and you can show here its advantages,
you should probably add here some link and request for merging.
BTW, I wonder if you tried to check if changing CONFIG_HZ makes any
difference here?
Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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