Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:30:02 -0800 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> Cc: FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Intel 82574L (em) Message-ID: <CAFOYbcmRR_1uZsgc3CVBd52K-13U_=EZnqy%2BXPPUoCdfd8wUSQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20150131010014.GB19333@strugglingcoder.info> References: <54CBF396.3090903@ignoranthack.me> <20150131010014.GB19333@strugglingcoder.info>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yup, I wrote that :) Sean, I will check around to see if anything may have changed in that regard. Jack On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:00 PM, hiren panchasara < hiren@strugglingcoder.info> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 01:11:50PM -0800, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/82574l-gbe-controller-datasheet.pdf > > > > According to 7.1.11, this device does indeed have 2 queues for stuff and > > or things. So, basic RSS would be possible in something like an Atom > box. > > > > I note that the em(4) driver intentionally disables this on > > initialization. I'm up for some science on my new shiny, soon to be > > router box. Any reason not to default to 1 queue and allow loader.conf > > to raise it to 2? > > Intel folks know better but it seems this is hartwell. > > em_setup_msix() in very start says: > > /* > ** Setup MSI/X for Hartwell: tests have shown > ** use of two queues to be unstable, and to > ** provide no great gain anyway, so we simply > ** seperate the interrupts and use a single queue. > */ > > Things may have changed now. I guess you can try enabling it and find out > :-) > > cheers, > Hiren >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFOYbcmRR_1uZsgc3CVBd52K-13U_=EZnqy%2BXPPUoCdfd8wUSQ>