netdev - RE: Low performance Intel 10GE NIC (3.2.10) on 2.6.38 Kernel

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]

Message-ID: <D12839161ADD3A4B8DA63D1A134D084026E4953A04@ESGSCCMS0001.eapac.ericsson.se>
Date:	Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:10:54 +0800
From:	Wei Gu <wei.gu@...csson.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: RE: Low performance Intel 10GE NIC (3.2.10) on 2.6.38 Kernel

Hi Eric,
I tried another parameter intel_idle.max_cstate=0 with 2.6.35.3
Looks like this setting make the a little better, less rx_error and much more stable.
However I haven't found this kernel param in the kernel document, but supprise it still works somehow:)

I will check with the HP guys to see if I need to do extra configuration in BIOS to disable more ACPI related features on DL580.

Thanks
WeiGu

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dumazet [mailto:eric.dumazet@...il.com]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:57 AM
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Alexander Duyck; Wei Gu; netdev; Kirsher, Jeffrey T; Mike Galbraith
Subject: Re: Low performance Intel 10GE NIC (3.2.10) on 2.6.38 Kernel

Le jeudi 14 avril 2011 à 18:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:42 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>
> > I'm doing some more digging into this now.  One thought that
> > occurred to me is that if the patch you mention is having some sort
> > of effect this could be a sign of perhaps a kernel timer or scheduling problem.
>
> Right, so the removal of the NO_HZ throttle will allow the CPU to go
> into C states more often, this could result in longer wake-up times
> for IRQs.
>
> We reverted because:
>   - it caused significant battery drain due to not going into C states
>     often enough, and
>   - its a much better idea to implement these things in the idle
>     governor since it already has the job of guestimating the idle
>     duration.
>
> I really can't remember back far enough to even come up with a theory
> of why kernels prior to merging the NO_HZ throttle would not exhibit
> this problem.
>
>
>

Normally, Wei Gu already asked to not use C states.

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c01804533/c01804533.pdf

How can we/he check this ?



--
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