netdev - Re: [PATCH 2.6.30-rc4] r8169: avoid losing MSI interrupts

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:	Sat, 23 May 2009 13:03:31 -0400
From:	David Dillow <dave@...dillows.org>
To:	Michael Riepe <michael.riepe@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
	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 Sat, 2009-05-23 at 18:53 +0200, Michael Riepe wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> Oh well...

>  27:   48463995          0          0          0   PCI-MSI-edge      eth0

What does it look like if you move the iperf around the CPUs while using
pci=nomsi? 

I'm looking to make sure I didn't cause a terrible regression in the
cost of IRQ handling...

--
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