[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200905231850.14725.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 18:50:14 +0200
From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To: David Dillow <dave@...dillows.org>
Cc: Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@...glemail.com>,
Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
Rui Santos <rsantos@...popie.com>,
Michael Büker <m.bueker@...lin.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.30-rc4] r8169: avoid losing MSI interrupts
On Saturday 23 May 2009 18:46:13 David Dillow wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-23 at 18:12 +0200, Michael Riepe wrote:
> > If I use two connections (iperf -P2) and nail iperf to both threads of a
> > single core with taskset (the program is multi-threaded, just in case
> > you wonder), I get this:
> >
> > CPU 0+2: 0.0-60.0 sec 4.65 GBytes 665 Mbits/sec
> > CPU 1+3: 0.0-60.0 sec 6.43 GBytes 920 Mbits/sec
> >
> > That's quite a difference, isn't it?
> >
> > Now I wonder what CPU 0 is doing...
>
> Where does /proc/interrupts say the irqs are going?
>
>
>
For me it looks like this:
24: 52606581 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth0
So as I have the same CPU as Michael Riepe, I think CPU0 (core0) servicing
interrupts is related to the issue.
I'm wondering however, if this is expected behavior. iperf and interrupts will
pretty much saturate a core of the atom330. So it looks like a plain CPU bottleneck.
--
Greetings, Michael.
--
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