On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 01:36:34PM +0200, Marko Zec wrote: > James, > > what timecounter method are you using, i8254 or TSC? The polling code > frequently calls microuptime(), which is very expensive (slow) with i8254,
it is not _that_ frequently, it should be twice per tick. Even with the 8254 i don't think this amounts to more than 4-5us, which is a couple of percent. cheers luigi > while being reasonable fast with TSC. Since you are running with quite high > system clock (4 kHz), using i8254 could be causing the problems you've > described. > > Cheers, > > Marko > > > > On Monday 26 July 2004 22:27, Don Bowman wrote: > > From: James [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > I have two boxes behind em0 that I can use to generate > > > 250kpps to another vlan > > > within em0 card as a test, so that bge0 is not involved in > > > the stress test. > > > Even when doing so, CPU load climbs higher with device > > > polling turned on. > > > Opened up systat, etc to check the interrupts, and em0 is > > > generating 0 > > > interrupts with device polling on (as obvious), but general > > > interrupt load > > > climbs rock high.. so I don't know what's causing it to > > > climb. Cleared the > > > firewall rules as well as a test... no difference :( > > > > > > Oh also, just FYI, each vlan interface has link0 set, since > > > em(4) supports > > > hardware 802.1q tag/detagging. > > > > The CPU time during the 'polling' is charged to interrupt, > > even though it occurs during softclock. That's why you > > see 0 interrupts, but high CPU usage in interrupt. > > Did u try lowering the 'register' access? > > > > --don > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
