On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 08:05:40PM +0200, Eugene Perevyazko wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 12:49:52PM +0200, Eugene Perevyazko wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:47:02AM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote: > > > On 11/10/10 12:04, Eugene Perevyazko wrote: > > > > > > >Tried 2 queues and 1 queue per iface, neither hitting cpu limit. > > > > > > Are you sure you are not hitting the CPU limit on individual cores? Have > > > you tried running "top -H -S"? > > > > > Sure, even with 1queue per iface load is 40-60% on busy core, with 2 queues > > it was much lower. > > Now I've got the module for mb with 2 more ports, going to see if it helps. > The IO module has em interfaces on it and somehow I've already got 2 panics > after moving one of vlans to it. > > In the mean time, can someone explain me what is processed by threads marked > like "irq256: igb0" and "igb0 que". May be understanding this will let me > pin those threads to cores more optimally. > There are (hw.igb.num_queues+1) "irq" threads and (hw.igb.num_queues) > "que" threads. Now I just pin them sequentially to even cores (odd ones are > HT). As far as I understand, you are not right about HT cores. Try switch HT off and do not use HT in routers in usual cases.
> Now I use hw.igb.num_queues=2, and with traffic limited to 1200Mbits the > busiest core is still 60% idle... > > > > -- > Eugene Perevyazko > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
