From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 8 12:26:38 2008 Return-Path: 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 C6D7A106566C for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:26:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe.kuan@itrinegy.com) Received: from mail.itrinegy.com (host81-143-90-145.in-addr.btopenworld.com [81.143.90.145]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1AC8FC23 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 12:26:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joe.kuan@itrinegy.com) Received: from [192.168.200.194] (192.168.200.194) by insvr01 (192.168.200.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.263.0; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:23:46 +0100 Message-ID: <03FF3E77-8B0F-4AF2-91D5-F0062DD8C6A2@itrinegy.com> From: Joe Kuan To: Ivan Voras In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:26:35 +0100 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.926) Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Help: FreeBSD 6.3 - em driver & taskqueue & priority X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:26:38 -0000 On 8 Jul 2008, at 12:35, Ivan Voras wrote: > Joe Kuan wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have implemented an network application in kernel space and it is >> working fine. The application involves 3 network interfaces that >> FreeBSD >> 6.3 can forward mbuf between em0 and em1 in a rate 1.3 - 1.4 millions >> packets per second. Em2 is used for controlling the network >> application. >> >> The problem is that when em0 and em1 are transmitting in 1.3 - 1.4 >> millions packets per second, the em2 interface becomes irresponsive. >> However, my goal is to make the kernelised network application >> response >> as soon as a control packet arrives in em2, ie jumps the queue >> ahead of >> all the packets in em0 and em1. >> >> I think the problem lies on the priority set on the task structure >> are all the same for all the em devices. Am I heading in the right >> direction? > > A wild theory: are the NICs separate / individual and on separate > buses? > If they are not (e.g. two of them are on the same card or bus) it > might > be a hardware issue. > em0 and em1 are on the same card. Em2 is on the separate card. Thanks Joe