Hi Matthew,
1.) vmstat and top output with ethtool -C <nic> rx-usecs 0 as well
as ethtool -C <nic> rx-usecs 3. (In my case both are giving me the same
results)
# vmstat 1
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
-----cpu------
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo
in cs us sy id wa st
0 0 0 2013040 11748 5736 0 0 0 0 40644
18 0 23 77 0 0
0 0 0 2013040 11748 5736 0 0 0 0 40736
28 0 23 77 0 0
0 0 0 2013040 11748 5736 0 0 0 0 40730
10 0 24 76 0 0
0 0 0 2013040 11748 5736 0 0 0 0 40731
14 0 24 76 0 0
0 0 0 2013040 11748 5736 0 0 0 0 40735
24 0 24 76 0 0
0 0 0 2013040 11748 5736 0 0 0 0 40732
12 0 24 76 0 0
# top output
Tasks: 41 total, 1 running, 40 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, *52.8%id,* 0.0%wa, 1.3%hi,
*45.8%si,* 0.0%st
2.) vmstat and top output with ethtool -C <nic> rx-usecs 4
# vmstat 1
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system--
-----cpu------
r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo
in cs us sy id wa st
0 0 0 2012916 11804 5740 0 0 0 0 18599
20 0 23 77 0 0
0 0 0 2012916 11804 5740 0 0 0 0 18588
14 0 22 78 0 0
0 0 0 2012916 11804 5740 0 0 0 0 18592
12 0 22 78 0 0
0 0 0 2012916 11804 5740 0 0 0 0 18591
12 0 22 78 0 0
0 0 0 2012916 11804 5740 0 0 0 0 18593
11 0 22 78 0 0
0 0 0 2012916 11804 5740 0 0 0 0 18594
12 0 23 77 0 0
# top output
Tasks: 41 total, 1 running, 40 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu0 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si,
0.0%st
Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, *53.3%id*, 0.0%wa, 0.3%hi,
*46.3%si*, 0.0%st
I can see a good amount of drop in interrupts in vmstat. i.e. 40600 to
18600 but I don't see much improvement in top output in terms of CPU
utilization.
Rgds,
Nishit Shah.
On 6/14/2012 10:44 PM, Vick, Matthew wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Nishit Shah [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 10:11 PM
To: Vick, Matthew
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] problem with simplified balancing on 82574
chips
Hi Matthew,
Currently I am testing 82574 and 82571/2 chips with same traffic
in a forwarding path using,
netperf client ---> machine with 82571/2/4 chips --> netperf
server with below commands,
./netperf -t UDP_STREAM -l 3600 -H<target_ip> -- -m 64
./netperf -T 2 -t TCP_STREAM -l 3600 -H<target_ip>
In both the cases I see major drop in CPU utilization in top for
82571/2 chips but not for 82574 chips. As mentioned I do see drop in
number of interrupts in vmstat.
Rgds,
Nishit Shah.
Thank you for detailing the test procedure. What's the "base" case you're
testing against for 82574, though? For example, are you leaving InterruptThrottleRate at
the default value, are you setting it to 0, etc. You may not see much difference between
the default InterruptThrottleRate (3 for dynamic conservative mode) and simplified mode.
I'd recommend comparing against InterruptThrottleRate=0.
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
