[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271163184.16881.307.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:53:04 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Paweł Staszewski <pstaszewski@...are.pl>
Cc: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
Benny Amorsen <benny+usenet@...rsen.dk>,
zhigang gong <zhigang.gong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Strange packet drops with heavy firewalling
Le mardi 13 avril 2010 à 14:33 +0200, Paweł Staszewski a écrit :
> W dniu 2010-04-13 01:18, Changli Gao pisze:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Benny Amorsen<benny+usenet@...rsen.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> 99: 24 1306226 3 2 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-0
> >> 100: 15735 1648774 3 7 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-1
> >> 101: 8 11 9 1083022 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-2
> >> 102: 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-tx-3
> >> 103: 18 15 6131 1095383 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-0
> >> 104: 217 32 46544 1335325 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-1
> >> 105: 154 1305595 218 16 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-2
> >> 106: 17 16 8229 1467509 PCI-MSI-edge eth1-rx-3
> >> 107: 0 0 1 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth1
> >> 108: 2 14 15 1003053 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-0
> >> 109: 8226 1668924 478 487 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-1
> >> 110: 3 1188874 17 12 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-2
> >> 111: 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-tx-3
> >> 112: 203 185 5324 1015263 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-0
> >> 113: 4141 1600793 153 159 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-1
> >> 114: 16242 1210108 436 3124 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-2
> >> 115: 267 4173 19471 1321252 PCI-MSI-edge eth0-rx-3
> >> 116: 0 1 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth0
> >>
> >>
> >> irqbalanced seems to have picked CPU1 and CPU3 for all the interrupts,
> >> which to my mind should cause the same problem as before (where CPU1 and
> >> CPU3 was handling all packets). Yet the box clearly works much better
> >> than before.
> >>
> > irqbalanced? I don't think it can work properly. Try RPS in netdev and
> > linux-next tree, and if cpu load isn't even, try this patch:
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/49915/ .
> >
> >
> >
> Yes without irqbalance - and with irq affinity set by hand router will
> work much better.
>
> But I don't think that RPS will help him - I make some tests with RPS
> and AFFINITY - results in attached file.
> Test router make traffic management (hfsc) for almost 9k users
Thanks for sharing Pawel.
But obviously you are mixing apples and oranges.
Are you aware that HFSC and other trafic shapers do serialize access to
data structures ? If many cpus try to access these structures in //, you
have a lot of cache line misses. HFSC is a real memory hog :(
Benny do have firewalling (highly parallelized these days, iptables was
well improved in this area), but no traffic control.
Anyway, Benny has now multiqueue devices, and therefore RPS will not
help him. I suggested RPS before his move to multiqueue, and multiqueue
is the most sensible way to improve things, when no central lock is
used. Every cpu can really work in //.
--
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