Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017, Sean Bruno wrote: On 01/24/17 08:27, Olivier Cochard-Labb?? wrote: On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Sean Bruno > wrote: Did you increase the number of rx/tx rings to 8 and the number of descriptors to 4k in your tests

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/24/17 08:27, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Sean Bruno > wrote: > > > > Did you increase the number of rx/tx rings to 8 and the number of > descriptors to 4k in your tests or just the defaults? >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > Did you increase the number of rx/tx rings to 8 and the number of > descriptors to 4k in your tests or just the defaults? > Tuning are same as described in my previous email (rxd|txd=2048, rx|tx process_limit=-1,

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/23/17 23:31, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Sean Bruno > wrote: > > > > Which set of configs from your test suite are you using for this? > Specifically, what packet size are you slamming across? >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > Which set of configs from your test suite are you using for this? > Specifically, what packet size are you slamming across? > > https://github.com/ocochard/netbenches/tree/master/pktgen.configs > ​Because I'm in the

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/23/17 08:39, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Matthew Macy > wrote: > > > A flame graph for the core cycle count and a flame graph with > cache miss stats from pmc would be a great start. > > >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:54 AM, Matthew Macy wrote: > > A flame graph for the core cycle count and a flame graph with cache > miss stats from pmc would be a great start. > > > > > > ​I didn't know the exact event name to use for cache miss stats, but > here are the flame

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:59:17 -0700 Sean Bruno wrote: > On 01/18/17 07:41, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > > > > On 01/18/17 00:34, O. Hartmann wrote: > >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:17:56 -0700 > >> Sean Bruno wrote: > >>> > >> On a Fujitsu Celsius M740, the

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/18/17 08:20, O. Hartmann wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 07:59:17 -0700 > Sean Bruno wrote: > >> On 01/18/17 07:41, Sean Bruno wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 01/18/17 00:34, O. Hartmann wrote: On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:17:56 -0700 Sean Bruno wrote:

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/18/17 07:41, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > On 01/18/17 00:34, O. Hartmann wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:17:56 -0700 >> Sean Bruno wrote: >>> >> On a Fujitsu Celsius M740, the "em0" device gets stuck on heavy I/O. I can >> still trigger this behaviour on recent CURRENT

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/18/17 00:34, O. Hartmann wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:17:56 -0700 > Sean Bruno wrote: > >> tl;dr --> igbX devices will become emX devices >> >> We're about to commit an update to sys/dev/e1000 that will implement and >> activate IFLIB for em(4), lem(4) & igb(4) and

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 20:17:56 -0700 Sean Bruno wrote: > tl;dr --> igbX devices will become emX devices > > We're about to commit an update to sys/dev/e1000 that will implement and > activate IFLIB for em(4), lem(4) & igb(4) and would appreciate all folks > who can test and

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

> A flame graph for the core cycle count and a flame graph with cache miss > stats from pmc would be a great start. > > > ​I didn't know the exact event name to use for cache miss stats, but here > are the flame graphs for CPU_CLK_UNHALTED_CORE: >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/11/17 15:44, Sean Bruno wrote: > >> My tunning are (same for both test): >> hw.igb.rxd="2048" (it should be useless now) >> hw.igb.txd="2048" (it should be useless now) >> hw.em.rxd="2048" >> hw.em.txd="2048" >> hw.igb.rx_process_limit="-1" (It should be useless now too) >>

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

> My tunning are (same for both test): > hw.igb.rxd="2048" (it should be useless now) > hw.igb.txd="2048" (it should be useless now) > hw.em.rxd="2048" > hw.em.txd="2048" > hw.igb.rx_process_limit="-1" (It should be useless now too) > hw.em.rx_process_limit="-1" > > dev.igb.2.fc=0 >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Matthew Macy wrote: > > > > I can generate profiling data for you: what kind of data do you want > ? > > > > > > > A flame graph for the core cycle count and a flame graph with cache miss > stats from pmc would be a great start. > > ​I

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

> > > My tunning are (same for both test): > > > hw.igb.rxd="2048" (it should be useless now) > > > hw.igb.txd="2048" (it should be useless now) > > Matt: I think he meant "useless now" because there is no igb, and the > below hw.em version covers it. No. igb still exists and the old

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 2017-01-11 15:37, Matthew Macy wrote: > You can still explicitly set the number of descriptors. It is now reported > under the dev sysctl tree. dev... > > -M > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:34:23 -0800 Olivier Cochard-Labbé > wrote > > > > On Wed, Jan 11,

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Matthew Macy wrote: > > > Hmmm ... did your old tests do 4 or 8 queues on this hardware? > > > > Did the old tests run 1024 tx/rx slots or the max 4096? > > That's a great point, only having one thread per core could easily account > for

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

> > I can generate profiling data for you: what kind of data do you want ? > > > A flame graph for the core cycle count and a flame graph with cache miss stats from pmc would be a great start. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

You can still explicitly set the number of descriptors. It is now reported under the dev sysctl tree. dev... -M On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:34:23 -0800 Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Matthew Macy wrote: >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:02:06 -0800 Sean Bruno wrote > > > On 01/11/17 12:47, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Sean Bruno > > wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/11/17 12:47, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Sean Bruno > wrote: > > > > Olivier: > > Give this a quick try. This isn't the correct way to do this, but I > want to see if I'm on the right

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > Olivier: > > Give this a quick try. This isn't the correct way to do this, but I > want to see if I'm on the right path: > ​thanks, it fix the problem, I've got back the 4 queues:​ ​igb2:

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

> > x head r311848: packets per second > + head r311849 and BAR patch: packets per second > +--+ > |++++ + xxx x x| > |

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/11/17 05:54, Matthew Macy wrote: > > > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:23:46 -0800 Olivier Cochard-Labbé > wrote > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > > > > > > I've updated sys/dev/e1000 at svn R311849 to match

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 01:23:46 -0800 Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Sean Bruno wrote: > > > > > I've updated sys/dev/e1000 at svn R311849 to match Matt Macy's work on > > IFLIB in the kernel. > > > > At

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Sean Bruno wrote: > > I've updated sys/dev/e1000 at svn R311849 to match Matt Macy's work on > IFLIB in the kernel. > > At this point, the driver deviates from Intel's code dramatically and > you now get to yell directly into the freebsd-net@

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

tl;dir --> you get to keep your igbX devices(thanks jhb), no POLA violations this week. I've updated sys/dev/e1000 at svn R311849 to match Matt Macy's work on IFLIB in the kernel. At this point, the driver deviates from Intel's code dramatically and you now get to yell directly into the

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On Thursday, January 05, 2017 08:17:56 PM Sean Bruno wrote: > tl;dr --> igbX devices will become emX devices > > We're about to commit an update to sys/dev/e1000 that will implement and > activate IFLIB for em(4), lem(4) & igb(4) and would appreciate all folks > who can test and poke at the

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

On 01/06/17 03:48, Steven Hartland wrote: > Hmm I'm not sure about everyone else but I we treat emX as legacy > devices (not used one in years) but igbX is very common here. > > The impact of changing a nic device name is quite a bit more involved > than just rc.conf it effects other areas too,

Re: HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

Hmm I'm not sure about everyone else but I we treat emX as legacy devices (not used one in years) but igbX is very common here. The impact of changing a nic device name is quite a bit more involved than just rc.conf it effects other areas too, jails etc so given we can loose access to the

HEADS-UP: IFLIB implementations of sys/dev/e1000 em, lem, igb pending

tl;dr --> igbX devices will become emX devices We're about to commit an update to sys/dev/e1000 that will implement and activate IFLIB for em(4), lem(4) & igb(4) and would appreciate all folks who can test and poke at the drivers to do so this week. This will have some really great changes for