Robert Watson writes: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > With the patch, we finally seem to be performance competative on the > > receive > > side with Linux x86_64 and Solaris/amd64 on this same hardware. Both of > > those OSes do much better (saturate the link with jumbos) when CPU > > affinity > > is used to bind the interrupt handler and netserver process to different > > cores on the same socket. I imagine FreeBSD may be able to do even better > > if it ever grows CPU affinity support for both interrupt handlers and > > processes. With the patch, it performs at least as well, if not better > > than, Solaris and Linux do without CPU affinity. > > I don't have numbers in front of me, and am currently packing for a trip to > Tokyo so won't find them before traveling, but my experience has been that > binding the ithread to a specific CPU is very helpful in improving receive > performance. You can slap a sched_bind(0) into the interrupt handler the > first time it runs and it should stick appropriately, and add a sysctl to > sched_bind() for a user process as a hack to test it out.
You lost me at adding the sysctl for the user process.. Does FreeBSD have, or plan to have, an interface to bind threads to CPUs? > > John has a patch that pins interrupt threads, etc, not sure what the status > of > that is. CC'd. He wanted me to test it and I dropped the ball. By the time I got a chance (some months later), it was so stale it did not come close to applying. I've asked him to regen. Drew _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
