From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 30 20:32:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80C9106566B; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:32:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com (mail-ob0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A568FC12; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3so5484965obb.13 for ; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:32:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Vfsq/X69JOqWLUc67ATt0OoVwUh8YhRyj86UKKEjyAU=; b=YMSVleBTc7tzRmpJ5KLRHytWI4e3EArQoYoZ/9jHvRIeiJxVSWVhHPXvdaEBFrj3E3 4dSfeDulZxYwW8WsxQTSEGL8+CZUwoSNwFKpfcpAbpDosumpTgW0/QcxKvjPX/2pZMYL a1mw7BILiHCHZkc+yBI6+GXJ+Wesf1yLTJPLIt/fJ3Kul+JMHipa0ICLjcvla3QolRUy /xdupl/csfK4UF6gDw81On6q82jusZLJ72o9MjL8ASk1/hzyTNPps4l6QWijf2pUINjG egxQ4lHRarxwM2ihFfgkoCUSZBCx9ewwHOjAEz9crDCEbjILkUj1otep64MNn/6Pc6yD lnlA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.218.37 with SMTP id pd5mr5980583obc.24.1346358745826; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.83.130 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:32:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <534292400.20120830131158@serebryakov.spb.ru> References: <1865271844.20120829131610@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1807373989.20120829223125@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20120830152726.A33776@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <534292400.20120830131158@serebryakov.spb.ru> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:32:25 -0500 Message-ID: From: Adam Vande More To: lev@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Ian Smith Subject: Re: Bad routing performance on 500Mhz Geode LX with CURRENT, ipfw and mpd5 (was: ipfw, "ip|all" proto and PPPoE -- does PPPoE packets passed to ipfw?) 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 Aug 2012 20:32:26 -0000 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > Hello, Ian. > You wrote 30 =C1=D7=C7=D5=D3=D4=C1 2012 =C7., 10:23:56: > > >> Yep, I'll collapse my two-rule chains in one rule. > IS> I guess if the issue persists, we may need to see more of your rulese= t. > Not a problem at all, here it is: > http://lev.serebryakov.spb.ru/_sklad/firewall.ipfw > > IS> Hmm, you shouldn't see ANY pppoe traffic on ng0, only on the interfac= e > IS> mpd5 uses to connect with your DSL modem/bridge. Nor would you expec= t > Yep. I didn't see it. My question is, really: why vr1 (my physical > interface, used to connect to my ISP) takes 50%+ of CPU when traffic > is only 40mbit/s down and about 20mbit/s up (with many connections)? Have you taken this into account from vr(4)? BUGS The vr driver always copies transmit mbuf chains into longword-aligned buffers prior to transmission in order to pacify the Rhine chips. If buffers are not aligned correctly, the chip will round the supplied buffer address and begin DMAing from the wrong location. This buffer copying impairs transmit performance on slower systems but cannot be avoided. On faster machines (e.g. a Pentium II), the performance impact is much less noticeable. --=20 Adam Vande More