On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Luigi Rizzo <ri...@iet.unipi.it> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 09:49:21PM +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
> > Hello list!
> >
> >
> > Packets receiving code for both ixgbe and if_igb looks like the
> following:
> >
> >
> > ixgbe_msix_que
> >
> > -- ixgbe_rxeof()
> > {
> > IXGBE_RX_LOCK(rxr);
> > while
> > {
> > get_packet;
> >
> > -- ixgbe_rx_input()
> > {
> > ++ IXGBE_RX_UNLOCK(rxr);
> > if_input(packet);
> > ++ IXGBE_RX_LOCK(rxr);
> > }
> >
> > }
> > IXGBE_RX_UNLOCK(rxr);
> > }
> >
> > Lines marked with ++ appeared in r209068(igb) and r217593(ixgbe).
> >
> > These lines probably do LORs masking (if any) well.
> > However, such change introduce quite significant performance drop:
> >
> > On my routing setup (nearly the same from previous -Intel 10G thread in
> > -net) adding lock/unlock causes 2.8MPPS decrease to 2.3MPPS which is
> > nearly 20%.
>
> one option could be (same as it is done in the timer
> routine in dummynet) to build a list of all the packets
> that need to be sent to if_input(), and then call
> if_input with the entire list outside the lock.
>
> It would be even easier if we modify the various *_input()
> routines to handle a list of mbufs instead of just one.
>
> cheers
> luigi
>
> Very interesting idea Luigi, will have to get that some thought.
Jack
> So my questions are:
> >
> > Can any real LORs happen in some complex setup? (I can't imagine any).
> > If so: maybe we can somehow avoid/workaround such cases? (and consider
> > removing those locks).
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR, Alexander
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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"
