05.09.2012 14:08, Adrian Chadd пишет:
> I'm so sorry for dropping off the radar here.
>
> Can you please compile your kernel with KTR enabled so we can capture
> some schedgraph traces?
Yes, I can and will. What should I do besides of rebuilding
the kernel with KTR and PREEMPTION?
__
I'm so sorry for dropping off the radar here.
Can you please compile your kernel with KTR enabled so we can capture
some schedgraph traces?
I'd like to let the scheduler people see what's going on.
I bet it's something like preemption is allowing the taskqueues to
preempt each other (which they
On 2012-Aug-31 00:17:11 +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Is it possible to use gprof with kernel? As here is no userland
>processes involved: PPPoE is porcessed by netgrpah, routing & ipfw is
>kernel stuff too...
Since no-one else has mentioned it, see the '-p' option to config(8)
and kgmon(8).
31.08.2012 22:54, Eugene Grosbein пишет:
> I've rebuilt by kernel with SCHED_ULE and excluded PREEMPTION.
> Stock driver works without changes in behaviour and driver from HEAD
> now works very similar to old one: LA is not higher than 2 and
> userland is pretty responsive. Also, transfer speed wi
31.08.2012 13:54, Adrian Chadd пишет:
> Just as a data point - disable preemption and try again?
I've rebuilt by kernel with SCHED_ULE and excluded PREEMPTION.
Stock driver works without changes in behaviour and driver from HEAD
now works very similar to old one: LA is not higher than 2 and
userla
Hello, Adam.
You wrote 31 августа 2012 г., 0:32:25:
AVM> BUGS
AVM> The vr driver always copies transmit mbuf chains into longword-aligned
AVM> buffers prior to transmission in order to pacify the Rhine chips. If
AVM> buffers are not aligned correctly, the chip will round the suppli
31.08.2012 13:54, Adrian Chadd пишет:
> Just as a data point - disable preemption and try again?
I'll try this evening.
> And run 4BSD + no preemption, try again?
With ULE old driver runs with low LA and userland is just fine.
Shouldn't new driver behave nice with ULE too?
Anyway, I'll try and
Just as a data point - disable preemption and try again?
And run 4BSD + no preemption, try again?
Adrian
On 30 August 2012 22:50, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> 31.08.2012 12:19, Eugene Grosbein пишет:
>
>> With HEAD driver, for same test LA pikes to 8 and higher and it takes up to
>> 10 seconds
>>
31.08.2012 12:19, Eugene Grosbein пишет:
> With HEAD driver, for same test LA pikes to 8 and higher and it takes up to
> 10 seconds
> for userland applications like shell or screen(1) to respond to physical
> console events:
>
> last pid: 1335; load averages: 8.27, 4.05, 2.04up 0+0
01.09.2012 01:07, YongHyeon PYUN пишет:
> It would be interesting to know whether there is any difference
> before/after taskq change made in r235334. I was told that taskq
> conversion for vr(4) resulted in better performance but I think
> taskq shall add more burden on slow hardware.
> Pre-r235
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 01:11:58PM +0400, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
> You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
>
> >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset.
> Not a problem at all, here it is:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:32:25PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ian.
> > You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
> >
> > >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> > IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may n
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:32:25PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>
> > Hello, Ian.
> > You wrote 30 ??? 2012 ?., 10:23:56:
> >
> > >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> > IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may n
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello, Ian.
> You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
>
> >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
> IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset.
> Not a problem at all, here it is:
> http
Hello, Adrian.
You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 23:01:12:
>> Yes, it is only 500Mhz Geode LX, but it is only 40 mbit/s and
>> 4.5Kpps in both directions, nothing like full 100Mbit or more, and
>> I've learned "empirical" rule/heuristics about 1Gbit(!) per 1Ghz(!)
>> for softrouters, So, theoretical
On 30 August 2012 02:11, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Yes, it is only 500Mhz Geode LX, but it is only 40 mbit/s and
> 4.5Kpps in both directions, nothing like full 100Mbit or more, and
> I've learned "empirical" rule/heuristics about 1Gbit(!) per 1Ghz(!)
> for softrouters, So, theoretically, 40mbit
Hello, Ian.
You wrote 30 августа 2012 г., 10:23:56:
>> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule.
IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your ruleset.
Not a problem at all, here it is:
http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/_sklad/firewall.ipfw
IS> Hmm, you shouldn't
17 matches
Mail list logo
