Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:45:03 -0700 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: pyunyh@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em driver regression Message-ID: <g2u2a41acea1004090945p6f77ee30yeb9fbab9a8e43863@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100409164115.GB1085@michelle.cdnetworks.com> References: <201004081313.o38DD4JM041821@lava.sentex.ca> <201004081446.o38EkU7h042296@lava.sentex.ca> <20100408181741.GI5734@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <201004081831.o38IVR3s043434@lava.sentex.ca> <20100408205626.GN5734@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <201004082105.o38L5DCH044187@lava.sentex.ca> <n2q2a41acea1004081406o969e7acbla0cef35f65f14f0a@mail.gmail.com> <20100408230750.GR5734@michelle.cdnetworks.com> <201004091317.o39DHFEl049965@lava.sentex.ca> <20100409164115.GB1085@michelle.cdnetworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Pyun YongHyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:17:07AM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 07:07 PM 4/8/2010, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > >On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > > >> Only one device support by em does multiqueue right now, and that is > > >> Hartwell, 82574. > > >> > > > > > >Thanks for the info. > > > > > >Mike, here is updated patch. Now UDP bulk TX transfer performance > > >recovered a lot(about 890Mbps) but it still shows bad numbers > > >compared to other controllers. For example, bce(4) shows about > > >958Mbps for the same load. > > >During the testing I found a strong indication of packet reordering > > >issue of drbr interface. If I forcibly change to use single TX > > >queue, em(4) got 950Mbps as it used to be. > > > > > >Jack, as we talked about possible drbr issue with igb(4), UDP > > >transfer seems to suffer from packet reordering issue here. Can we > > >make em(4)/igb(4) use single TX queue until we solve drbr interface > > >issue? Given that only one em(4) controller supports multiqueue, > > >dropping multiqueue support for em(4) does not look bad to me. > > > > No watchdog errors over night. I wonder if the issue was due to > > 100Mb, or the patch from current fixed it. I will try today with the > > new patch below! I am guessing the rejection was due to the RX/TX fix ? > > > > The patch was generated against latest HEAD. This includes Jack's > latest fix too so it may not be applied cleanly on stable/8. > I think you can use em(4) in HEAD. > Yes, you can. And I think its the code change not the speed Mike. Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?g2u2a41acea1004090945p6f77ee30yeb9fbab9a8e43863>