From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 30 12:51:23 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 6D671106567C; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:51:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gizmen@blurp.pl) Received: from albion.azs.pwr.wroc.pl (albion.azs.pwr.wroc.pl [156.17.17.145]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B5EA8FC20; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:51:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gizmen@blurp.pl) Received: from [10.8.1.27] (unknown [212.127.90.234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by albion.azs.pwr.wroc.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89102116FE; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:51:21 +0100 (CET) From: Bartosz Giza Organization: BLURP.pl To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:51:20 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <1225203780.00029971.1225190402@10.7.7.3> <200810291337.44899.gizmen@blurp.pl> <4908664D.4090900@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4908664D.4090900@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810301351.20288.gizmen@blurp.pl> Cc: Alexander Motin 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:51:23 -0000 Wednesday 29 of October 2008 14:34:05 Alexander Motin napisa=C5=82(a): > Bartosz Giza wrote: > > So now i am lost again. If packet filtering on bge card is counted to > > irq17: bge0 process so i think it should use more cpu. > > From what you wrote there should be no difference for me if card use > > tasq or irq. Those processes do exactly the same thing? If that is true > > so why there is so much difference in cpu usage: > > > > 20 root 1 -68 - 0K 8K - 0 161:01 18.75% em0 > > taskq 21 root 1 -68 - 0K 8K WAIT 1 100:10 5.47% > > irq17: bge0 23 root 1 -68 - 0K 8K WAIT 0 75:31=20 > > 2.98% irq16: fxp1 > > > > If what you wrote is true that overhead of incomming packet on bge0 > > should be counted to irq17: bge0 > > So don't understand why there is so big cpu usage on em0. From what you > > are saying irq17 and em0 taskq should have similar usage. Even more > > bge0 passes about two times more traffic than em0. I simply don't > > understand this. > > > > So don't understand why there is so big cpu usage on em0. > > Have no idea, there are too much possibilities to answer without > profiling. Different incoming packet rates, different firewall match > patterns in opposite directions, different card's hardware at least. I > have noticed that even different types of em cards may have twice as > different CPU usage due to using different interrupt moderation > techniques. THanks for all hints that you gave me. I have found what cause this high cp= u=20 usage.... ipfw :) I have a lot of rules in ipfw and actually i have tune=20 them up and after that em0 taskq process sterted to use less cpu(similar to= =20 bge0). It was bad firewall design Could you tell me which chipset from intel would you recommend or you know= =20 that is best from all that you tested. Once again thanks for answers :)