On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:17:07AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 07:07 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is > >> Hartwell, 82574. > >> > > > >Thanks for the info. > > > >Mike, here is updated patch. Now UDP bulk TX transfer performance > >recovered a lot(about 890Mbps) but it still shows bad numbers > >compared to other controllers. For example, bce(4) shows about > >958Mbps for the same load. > >During the testing I found a strong indication of packet reordering > >issue of drbr interface. If I forcibly change to use single TX > >queue, em(4) got 950Mbps as it used to be. > > > >Jack, as we talked about possible drbr issue with igb(4), UDP > >transfer seems to suffer from packet reordering issue here. Can we > >make em(4)/igb(4) use single TX queue until we solve drbr interface > >issue? Given that only one em(4) controller supports multiqueue, > >dropping multiqueue support for em(4) does not look bad to me. > > No watchdog errors over night. I wonder if the issue was due to > 100Mb, or the patch from current fixed it. I will try today with the > new patch below! I am guessing the rejection was due to the RX/TX fix ? >
The patch was generated against latest HEAD. This includes Jack's latest fix too so it may not be applied cleanly on stable/8. I think you can use em(4) in HEAD. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
