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.
OK, So I did a hack which binds anything which calls accept() to CPU1, and then hacked the intr handler of my driver to bind it to CPU0. I saw no improvement. Darn. BTW, doing binding like this seems to entirely eliminate the out-of-order packets I see when net.isr.direct=0. Drew _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
