Hi Adrian, It is my understanding that you are maintaining the RSS code. The Panasas folks have this question for you.
We are doing our testing w/ 11-CURRENT, but we will initially ship Intel XL710 40G NIC (Fortville) running on 10.1-RELEASE or 10.2-RELEASE. The presence of RSS - even though it is disabled by default - makes the driver back-port non-trivial. Is there an estimate on when the 11-CURRENT version of the ixl driver (1.4.1) and (especially) the supporting RSS code infrastructure will get MFCed to 10-STABLE? Thanks, -Fred On 5/26/15 5:58 PM, "Adrian Chadd" <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote: >hi! > >Try enabling RSS and PCBGROUPS on -HEAD. The ixl driver should work. > >(I haven't tested it though; I've had other things going on here.) > > > >-adrian > > >On 21 May 2015 at 15:20, Lakshmi Narasimhan Sundararajan ><lakshm...@msystechnologies.com> wrote: >> Hi FreeBSD Team! >> >> We seem to have found a problem to Tx performance. >> >> We found that the tx handling is spread on all CPUs causing probably >>cache trashing resulting in poor performance. >> >> But once we used cpuset to bind interrupt thread and iperf process to >>the same CPU, performance was close to line rate. I used userland cpuset >>command to perform this manually. I want this constrained in the kernel >>config/code through some tunables, and I am seeking your help/pointers >>in that regard. >> >> >> My followup questions are as follows. >> >> a) How are Tx interrupts steered from the NIC to the CPU on the >>transmit path? Would tx_complete# interrupt for packets transmitted from >>CPU#x, be serviced on the same CPU? If not, how to get this binding done? >> >> >> b) I would like to use a pool of CPUs dedicated to service NIC >>interrupts. Especially on the transmit path, I would want the >>tx_interrupts to be handled on the same CPU on which request was >>submitted. How to get this done? >> >> >> I played with the current ISR setting but I did not see any difference >>in how Interrupts are scheduled across CPU. The max interrupt threads >>even though set to one, the interrupt threads are scheduled on any CPU. >>Even if I set bindthreads to Œ1¹. There is no difference in interrupt >>thread scheduling. >> >> >> root@mau-da-27-4-1:~ # sysctl net.isr >> net.isr.dispatch: direct >> net.isr.maxthreads: 1 >> net.isr.bindthreads: 0 >> net.isr.maxqlimit: 10240 >> net.isr.defaultqlimit: 256 >> net.isr.maxprot: 16 >> net.isr.numthreads: 1 >> >> >> I would sincerely appreciate if you can provide some pointers on these >>items above. >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> LN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Pokala, Ravi >> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 3:34 AM >> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, j...@freebsd.org, e...@freebsd.org >> Cc: freebsd-hack...@freebsd.org, Lewis, Fred, Sundararajan, Lakshmi >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi folks, >> >> At Panasas, we are working with the Intel XL710 40G NIC (aka Fortville), >> and we're seeing some performance issues w/ 11-CURRENT (r282653). >> >> Motherboard: Intel S2600KP (aka Kennedy Pass) >> CPU: E5-2660 v3 @ 2.6GHz (aka Haswell Xeon) >> (1 socket x 10 physical cores x 2 SMT threads) = 20 logical >>cores >> NIC: Intel XL710, 2x40Gbps QSFP, configured in 4x10Gbps mode >> RAM: 4x 16GB DDR4 DIMMs >> >> What we've seen so far: >> >> - TX performance is pretty consistently lower than RX performance. All >> numbers below are for unidrectional tests using `iperf': >> 10Gbps links threads/link TX Gbps RX Gbps TX/RX >> 1 1 9.02 9.85 91.57% >> 1 8 8.49 9.91 85.67% >> 1 16 7.00 9.91 70.63% >> 1 32 6.68 9.92 67.40% >> >> - With multiple active links, both TX and RX performance suffer >>greatly; >> the aggregate bandwidth tops out at about a third of the theoretical >> 40Gbps implied by 4x 10Gbps. >> 10Gbps links threads/link TX Gbps RX Gbps % of >>40Gbps >> 4 1 13.39 13.38 33.4% >> >> - Multi-link bidirectional throughput is absolutely terrible; the >> aggregate is less than a tenth of the theoretical 40Gbps. >> 10Gbps links threads/link TX Gbps RX Gbps % of >>40Gbps >> 4 1 3.83 2.96 9.6% / >>7.4% >> >> - Occasional interrupt storm messages are seen from the IRQs >>associated >> with the NICs. Since that can impact performance, those runs were not >> included in the data listed above. >> >> Our questions: >> >> - How stable is ixl(4) in -CURRENT? By that, we mean both how quickly >>is >> the driver changing, and does the driver cause any system instability? >> >> - What type of performance have others been getting w/ Fortville? In >> 40Gbps mode? In 4x10Gbps mode? >> >> - Does anyone have any tuning parameters they can recommend for this >> card? >> >> - We did our testing w/ 11-CURRENT, but we will initially ship >>Fortville >> running on 10.1-RELEASE or 10.2-RELEASE. The presence of RSS - even >>though >> it is disabled by default - makes the driver back-port non-trivial. Is >> there an estimate on when the 11-CURRENT version of the driver (1.4.1) >> will get MFCed to 10-STABLE? >> >> My colleagues Lakshmi and Fred (CCed) are working on this; please make >> sure to include them if you have any comments. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ravi >> _______________________________________________ >> 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"
