--- On Tue, 5/1/12, Juli Mallett wrote:
> From: Juli Mallett
> Subject: Re: igb(4) at peak in big purple
> To: "Barney Cordoba"
> Cc: "Sean Bruno" , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org"
>
> Date: Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 5:50 PM
> Hey Barney,
>
&
Hey Barney,
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 11:13, Barney Cordoba wrote:
> --- On Fri, 4/27/12, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > [Tricking Intel's cards into giving something like round-robin packet
> > delivery to multiple queues. ]
>
> That seems like a pretty naive approach. First, you want all of the packet
--- On Fri, 4/27/12, Juli Mallett wrote:
> From: Juli Mallett
> Subject: Re: igb(4) at peak in big purple
> To: "Sean Bruno"
> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org"
> Date: Friday, April 27, 2012, 4:00 PM
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:29, Sean
> Bruno
>
I suspect to do it right would involve having the stack/kernel have more
interaction with the driver/interface data, and this IS the way RSS was
envisioned to work. Its been talked about but hasn't happened so far.
Jack
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Juli Mallett wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 201
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:29, Sean Bruno wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 11:13 -0700, Juli Mallett wrote:
>> Queue splitting in Intel cards is done using a hash of protocol
>> headers, so this is expected behavior. This also helps with TCP and
>> UDP performance, in terms of keeping packets for t
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 11:13 -0700, Juli Mallett wrote:
> Queue splitting in Intel cards is done using a hash of protocol
> headers, so this is expected behavior. This also helps with TCP and
> UDP performance, in terms of keeping packets for the same protocol
> control block on the same core, but
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:07, Sean Bruno wrote:
> I note form top that igb0 queue 0 is always "more busy" than any other
> queue, there appears to be a second kernel igb0 "queue" process/thread
> that appears to be moderately busy and 3 kernel igb0 "queue"
> processes/threads that appear to be do
