> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:49:13 PM > Subject: Re: IRQ31 and IRQ32 on HPDL585 running FreeBSD 7.0 are consuming > HIGH CPU usage > > Won De Erick wrote: > > > Another thing, I observed that in the above test, the net.isr is enabled by > > default. When I tried disabling this, > > > > # sysctl net.isr.direct=0 > > net.isr.direct: 1 -> 0 > > > > the result: > > > > 52 root 1 -68 - 0K 16K WAIT b 64:00 42.97% irq32: bce1 > > 51 root 1 -68 - 0K 16K WAIT a 38:22 12.26% irq31: bce0 > > > > The CPU utilizations considerably dropped! > > You will probably find a "swi" process that has picked up the difference > (when isr.direct is disabled, some of network protocol processing is > offloaded to a swi thread). This might help spread the load across CPU > but in my testing it didn't help real-world throughput. >
You are right. I noticed the following when net.isr is diabled, lowering the idle time of cpu0. 27 root 1 -44 - 0K 16K WAIT 0 52:20 76.37% swi1: net 26 root 1 171 ki31 0K 16K CPU0 0 111:58 64.36% idle: cpu0 Another thing, Packet drops on Intel NIC ( IntelĀ® PRO/1000 PT Dual Port Server Adapter w/ control processor 82571GB) did not occur when the net.isr was disabled, while the overall CPU utilization remains considerably low. Note: The following result was obtained during a transition from a disabled to enabled net.isr. Hence the first part packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls drops 10844 0 15603850 7940 0 582934 0 0 11659 0 16800328 8503 0 630330 0 0 11778 0 17033560 8998 0 677934 0 0 12149 0 17592134 9504 0 728094 0 0 12551 0 18223550 9974 0 774164 0 0 13127 0 19093604 10413 0 811858 0 0 13712 0 20010140 10924 0 848014 0 0 14499 0 21153538 11407 0 878252 0 0 14818 0 21740270 11979 0 915374 0 0 15831 0 23136446 12376 0 950636 0 0 15912 0 23365454 12852 0 997242 0 0 16257 0 23848866 13282 0 1041878 0 0 16384 0 24084782 13666 0 1079790 0 0 16670 0 24508980 14078 0 1106886 0 0 17845 0 26255548 14486 0 1134700 0 0 18097 0 26705634 15064 0 1163308 0 0 18470 0 27283000 15365 0 1198828 0 0 18139 0 26842676 15596 0 1225540 0 0 18792 0 27799564 16000 0 1264568 0 0 17854 178 26454106 16521 0 1298714 0 0 16741 1542 24820298 16770 0 1343328 0 0 input (em0) output packets errs bytes packets errs bytes colls drops 15288 1667 22683486 17231 0 1422690 0 0 15539 1718 23250372 17282 0 1495058 0 0 14379 545 21541954 17364 0 1508696 0 0 14312 1733 21546776 17276 0 1503372 0 0 14269 1744 21498908 17516 0 1508294 0 0 14444 1729 21766812 17175 0 1482130 0 0 15023 1724 22643198 16987 0 1432048 0 0 15279 1703 23036294 16909 0 1395094 0 0 15325 1701 23118536 16938 0 1380268 0 0 15572 1684 23494362 16909 0 1344214 0 0 15798 1699 23845972 16857 0 1303200 0 0 16195 1683 24497790 17059 0 1291586 0 0 16431 1674 24851278 16826 0 1245320 0 0 16683 1643 25231910 16675 0 1204450 0 0 16728 1647 25302534 16672 0 1178930 0 0 16826 1649 25455662 16662 0 1178140 0 0 16760 1653 25352830 16480 0 1161086 0 0 17002 1634 25720672 16423 0 1143508 0 0 16943 1643 25629892 16642 0 1160858 0 0 16995 1644 25708823 16539 0 1153782 0 0 17026 1643 25758462 16606 0 1153342 0 0 However, network throughput didn't change in the two scenarios above. Is there anything that I can test to improve my network throughput. Thanks, Won _______________________________________________ freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hardware To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"