Wednesday 29 of October 2008 11:36:45 Alexander Motin napisał(a): > Bartosz Giza wrote: > > Tuesday 28 of October 2008 19:10:43 Alexander Motin napisał(a): > >> Bartosz Giza wrote: > >>>> The CPU time you see there includes much more then just a card > >>>> handling itself. It also includes CPU time of the most parts of > >>>> network stack used to process received packet. So if you have NAT, > >>>> big firewall, netgraph or any other CPU-hungry actions done with > >>>> packets incoming via em0 you will see such results. > >>>> Even more interesting is that if bge0 or fxp0 cards will require > >>>> much CPU time to send packet, this time will also be accounted to > >>>> em0 process. > > > > I have checked this and you are right. When i turned off ipfw; taskq > > process started to use less cpu. But still what is strange why > > processing from other cards are counted in em0 taskq ? > > What you mean by "processing from other cards"? em0 taskq counts all > processing caused by packets incoming via em0 up to and including > processing of their transmission by bge/fxp drivers. Same is about > bge/fxp. If bge/fxp/em drivers would have separate transmission > processes - you would see them, but they don't, so their CPU time > accounted to the caller.
Ok now i think understand this. If packet enters via em0 all processing of packet filters(and others) way up to sending packet via other interface is counted to em0 taskq( even overhead of packet filter when packet leaves the interface) ? Basicly overhead from passing packet to packet filter twice (on in and out) > > This is quite strange and in that > > way em0 taskq process is using more cpu on one of the cores. So what i > > think the best would be to have only em NICs because processing of the > > packets would be splitted to those taskq processes is that right ? > > em0 processes packets in separate process named taskq, bge does it > directly in interrupt handler process. There is no principal difference > for you I think. So now i am lost again. If packet filtering on bge card is counted to irq17: bge0 process so i think it should use more cpu. From what you wrote there should be no difference for me if card use tasq or irq. Those processes do exactly the same thing? If that is true so why there is so much difference in cpu usage: 20 root 1 -68 - 0K 8K - 0 161:01 18.75% em0 taskq 21 root 1 -68 - 0K 8K WAIT 1 100:10 5.47% irq17: bge0 23 root 1 -68 - 0K 8K WAIT 0 75:31 2.98% irq16: fxp1 If what you wrote is true that overhead of incomming packet on bge0 should be counted to irq17: bge0 So don't understand why there is so big cpu usage on em0. From what you are saying irq17 and em0 taskq should have similar usage. Even more bge0 passes about two times more traffic than em0. I simply don't understand this. > > Ok, good to know. But how is counted firewall overhead when i would > > have only bge cards. They don't use taskq so i assume i would see this > > as system usage correct ? > > You would see a lot of interrupt time in this case. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
