> -----Original Message----- > From: Nishit Shah [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 5:42 AM > To: Vick, Matthew > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] problem with simplified balancing on 82574 > chips > > > Hi Matthew, > > Bingo !!!!. It has solved first issue. > Thanks for doing it. > > I will open an issue on SourceForge page for the same with all the > details. > > One thing I want to put here is with this change I don't see a > major drop in CPU utilization in case of 82574 chip. (It is same even > with setting constant values like 3000 or 8000) Whereas I can see good > amount of drop in 82571/572/573 chips. > I do see less number of interrupts in vmstat but CPU utilization > is not dropping the way it is dropping for other chips. > > Rgds, > Nishit Shah.
Great--glad to hear this worked for you! There are a few explanations for the behavior you're seeing: for one, 82574 behaves differently than 82571, 82572, and 82573, as it by default will use a different interrupt scheme. Also, depending on your traffic, that algorithm may not be the best choice. What are you comparing your CPU utilization to? Cheers, Matthew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ E1000-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/e1000-devel To learn more about Intel® Ethernet, visit http://communities.intel.com/community/wired
