From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Oct 28 11:25:06 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA75D1065685;
	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:25:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bartosz.giza@korbank.pl)
Received: from LISTonosz.Korbank.PL (chrissie.static.korbank.pl
	[193.239.59.243])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3CB8FC1A;
	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:25:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bartosz.giza@korbank.pl)
Received: from LISTonosz.Korbank.PL (unknown [127.0.0.3])
	by LISTonosz.Korbank.PL (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02B71670AC7;
	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:58:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.8.1.27] (unknown [10.8.1.27])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by LISTonosz.Korbank.PL (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9628316709AC;
	Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:58:46 +0100 (CET)
From: Bartosz Giza <bartosz.giza@korbank.pl>
Organization: KORBANK
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:09:58 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7
References: <200810281235.53508.gizmen@blurp.pl> <4906EC8D.7070503@freebsd.org>
	<4906EE31.3080400@samoylyk.sumy.ua>
In-Reply-To: <4906EE31.3080400@samoylyk.sumy.ua>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200810281309.58262.bartosz.giza@korbank.pl>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Cc: Oleksandr Samoylyk <oleksandr@samoylyk.sumy.ua>,
	Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>, jfvogel@gmail.com
Subject: Re: two NIC on 2 core system (scheduling problem)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:25:07 -0000

Tuesday 28 of October 2008 11:49:21 Oleksandr Samoylyk napisa=C5=82(a):
> Ivan Voras wrote:
> > Bartosz Giza wrote:
> >> Another question is why em0 taskq is eating so much cpu ? BGE
> >> interface is actually one that pushes 2 times more packets than em0
> >> and it uses about half cpu comparing to em0. Is that not strange ?
> >> Could someone tell my why is this happening ? BGE is faster ? or maybe
> >> i can tune some
> >
> > I have the same problem - em0 taskq eating incredible amounts of CPU.
> > If you find a solution, contact me!
>
> It could be not just a problem with em driver.
> Firstly, it's good to make profiling and find out what exactly eats CPU
> time.

Yes, we should make some profiling, but it is quite hard on busy production=
=20
router. When i turn on pooling on em0 card swi1: net is using about 3% of=20
cpu. So it is quite big difference between  20% with tasq and 3% with=20
polling.
BTW: i am using

em0@pci0:3:0:0: class=3D0x020000 card=3D0x10838086 chip=3D0x10b98086 rev=3D=
0x06=20
hdr=3D0x00
    vendor     =3D 'Intel Corporation'
    device     =3D '82572EI PRO/1000 PT Desktop Adapter (Copper)'
    class      =3D network
    subclass   =3D ethernet

I know it is desktop card but i thnik it should not use so much cpu. Beside=
s=20
intel card and em driver is supposed to be the best on freebsd. But from my=
=20
observation bge cards are better for now.

=2D-=20
Pozdrawiam,
Bartosz Giza, Administrator sieci
Korbank sp. z o.o.