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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <C27F8246C663564A84BB7AB3439772421B7814753A@IRVEXCHCCR01.corp.ad.broadcom.com> Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:00:44 -0700 From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com> To: "'Krzysztof Oledzki'" <ole@....pl> cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: bnx2/BCM5709: why 5 interrupts on a 4 core system (2.6.33.3) Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > On 2010-05-16 20:51, Michael Chan wrote: > > Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: > > > >> > >> Why the driver registers 5 interrupts instead of 4? How to > >> limit it to 4? > >> > > > > The first vector (eth0-0) handles link interrupt and other slow > > path events. It also has an RX ring for non-IP packets that are > > not hashed by the RSS hash. The majority of the rx packets should > > be hashed to the rx rings eth0-1 - eth0-4, so I would assign these > > vectors to different CPUs. > > Thank you for your prompt response. > > In my case the first vector must be handling something more: > - "ping -f 192.168.0.1" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 > and eth1-4 > - "ping -f 192.168.0.2" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 > and eth1-3 > - "ping -f 192.168.0.3" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 > and eth1-1 > - "ping -f 192.168.0.7" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 > and eth1-2 > > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 > 67: 1563979 0 0 0 > PCI-MSI-edge eth1-0 > 68: 1072869 0 0 0 > PCI-MSI-edge eth1-1 > 69: 137905 0 0 0 > PCI-MSI-edge eth1-2 > 70: 259246 0 0 0 > PCI-MSI-edge eth1-3 > 71: 760252 0 0 0 > PCI-MSI-edge eth1-4 > > As you can see, eth1-1 + eth1-2 + eth1-3 + eth1-4 ~= eth1-0. I think that ICMP ping packets will always go to ring 0 (eth1-0) because they are non-IP packets. I need to double check tomorrow on how exactly the hashing works on RX. Can you try running IP traffic? IP packets should theoretically go to rings 1 - 4. > > So, it seems that TX or RX is always handled by the first vector. > I'll try to find if it is TX or RX. > > BTW: I'm using .1Q vlans over bonding, does it change anything? That should not matter, as the VLAN tag is stripped before hashing. -- 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