From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 25 11:59:53 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFC2106566C
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:59:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB6758FC1A
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:59:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gofp-freebsd-performance@m.gmane.org>)
	id 1Rq1W1-0004FG-2B
	for freebsd-performance@freebsd.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:59:49 +0100
Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:59:48 +0100
Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:59:48 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:59:36 +0100
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <jfoqr8$mld$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <a231a44c6c803075c7b456a6189ff6ce@leon.pl>
	<CAFOYbcksi7KBpEjH=-hHEoTr35ynwYk98Ushw9nzR27H+GVBFA@mail.gmail.com>
	<jfmbam$37c$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<909994c3cdd84cb2c47ff8037c23e142@leon.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:9.0) Gecko/20120110 Thunderbird/9.0
In-Reply-To: <909994c3cdd84cb2c47ff8037c23e142@leon.pl>
Subject: Re: Performance problem using Intel X520-DA2
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:59:53 -0000

On 24/01/2012 17:53, Marcin Markowski wrote:
> On 24.01.2012 14:22, Ivan Voras wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Marcin
>>> Markowski<mmarkowski@leon.pl>wrote:
>>
>>>> (on 9.0 we can see also kernel thread named {ix0 que} using 100% CPU),
>>
>>>> hw.ixgbe.num_queues=16
>>
>> If there really are 16 hardware queues, shouldn't there be 16 kernel
>> threads for queue processing?
>
> There are 16 threads, but only one of them consumes 100% CPU and the others
> do not use more than 5% CPU:
>
> http://pastebin.com/BWDWh8kW

You need Jack to confirm it but this looks like a serious problem / 
bottleneck. It just shouldn't be like that (if the test is exactly the 
same).