On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME WCPU COMMAND
60 root 1 -44 -163 0K 8K WAIT 355.6H 72.17% swi1:
net
39 root 1 -68 -187 0K 8K WAIT 52.3H 5.22% irq28:
bge0
40 root 1 -68 -187 0K 8K WAIT 28.3H 2.25% irq29:
bge1
11 root 1 171 52 0K 8K RUN 166.6H 0.00% idle
63 root 1 -16 0 0K 8K - 121:55 0.00% yarrow
61 root 1 -32 -151 0K 8K WAIT 46:21 0.00% swi4:
clock sio
[...]
Does anyone know whether a dual CPU system can help us improve the
situation? I was wondering if the software interrupt threads would be
divided between the two processors.
I am a few weeks late, I just saw this very interesting thread. What
solution did you finally employ to circumvent your high interrupt load ?
I missed the original thread, but in answer to the question: if you set
net.isr.direct=1, then FreeBSD 6.x will run the netisr code in the ithread of
the network device driver. This will allow the IP forwarding and related
paths in two threads instead of one, potentially allowing greater parallelism.
Of course, you also potentially contend more locks, you may increase the time
it takes for the ithread to respond to new interrupts, etc, so it's not quite
cut and dry, but with a workload like the one shown above, it might make quite
a difference.
Robert N M Watson
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
