Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:33:04 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Cc: smp@freebsd.org, Archimedes Gaviola <archimedes.gaviola@gmail.com> Subject: Re: CPU affinity with ULE scheduler Message-ID: <200811101733.04547.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <42e3d810811100033w172e90dbl209ecbab640cc24f@mail.gmail.com> References: <42e3d810811100033w172e90dbl209ecbab640cc24f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 10 November 2008 03:33:23 am Archimedes Gaviola wrote: > To Whom It May Concerned: > > Can someone explain or share about ULE scheduler (latest version 2 if > I'm not mistaken) dealing with CPU affinity? Is there any existing > benchmarks on this with FreeBSD? Because I am currently using 4BSD > scheduler and as what I have observed especially on processing high > network load traffic on multiple CPU cores, only one CPU were being > stressed with network interrupt while the rests are mostly in idle > state. This is an AMD-64 (4x) dual-core IBM system with GigE Broadcom > network interface cards (bce0 and bce1). Below is the snapshot of the > case. Interrupts are routed to a single CPU. Since bce0 and bce1 are both on the same interrupt (irq 23), the CPU that interrupt is routed to is going to end up handling all the interrupts for bce0 and bce1. This not something ULE or 4BSD have any control over. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200811101733.04547.jhb>