[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295269713.3700.5.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 13:08:33 +0000
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: mi wake <wakemi.wake@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: rps testing questions
On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 17:43 +0800, mi wake wrote:
> I do a rps(Receive Packet Steering) testing on centos 5.5 with kernel 2.6.37.
> cpu: 8 core Intel.
> ethernet adapter: bnx2x
>
> Problem statement:
> enable rps with:
> echo "ff" > /sys/class/net/eth2/queues/rx-0/rps_cpus.
>
> running 1 instances of netperf TCP_RR: netperf -t TCP_RR -H 192.168.0.1 -c -C
> without rps: 9963.48(Trans Rate per sec)
> with rps: 9387.59(Trans Rate per sec)
>
> I do ab and tbench testing also find there is less tps with enable
> rps.but,there is more cpu using when with enable rps.when with enable
> rps ,softirqs is blanced on cpus.
>
> is there something wrong with my test?
In addition to what Eric said, check the interrupt moderation settings
(ethtool -c/-C options). One-way latency for a single request/response
test will be at least the interrupt moderation value.
I haven't tested RPS by itself (Solarflare NICs have plenty of hardware
queues) so I don't know whether it can improve latency. However, RFS
certainly does when there are many flows.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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