On 29.12.2015. 17:49, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:45:49 +0100
>> > 
>> > On 22.12.2015. 22:08, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>> > > Anybody willing to give this a spin?  I don't have access to hardware
>>> > > currently...
>>> > > 
>>> > > Thanks,
>>> > > 
>>> > > Mark
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > i'm sending 1.1Mpps and this patch almost immediately trigger OACTIVE
>> > flag. Patch is applied on clean source few minutes ago. If there is
>> > anything i can do more, please tell....
> ok, that diff wasn't quite right.  Here is a better one.  This one
> gets rid of the ridiculous number of scatter segments on the 82598.
> There really is no point in allowing that many segments, and with the
> new code it would reduce the usable part of the tx ring significantly.
> 
> I did some testing of forwarding performance on a machine with two
> sockets filled with:
> 
>   cpu0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2630 v3 @ 2.40GHz, 2400.37 MHz
> 
> for a total of 16 cores forwarding between ix1 and ix0:
> 
>   ix0 at pci3 dev 0 function 0 "Intel X540T" rev 0x01: msi, address 
> 0c:c4:7a:4d:a3:e4
>   ix1 at pci3 dev 0 function 1 "Intel X540T" rev 0x01: msi, address 
> 0c:c4:7a:4d:a3:e5
> 
> I basically tested how many pps I could push through the box without
> loss, and many pps got through if sent 1Mpps into the box.  All
> testing was done with pf disabled.
> 
> With -current I got the following numbers:
> 
> - 730kpps without loss
> - 82kpps when receiving 1Mpps
> 
> and if I set net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen to 8000 I got:
> 
> - 740kpps without loss
> - 640-740kpps when receiving 1Mpps (fluctuating)
> 
> With this diff I got:
> 
> - 670kpps without loss
> - 250kpps when receiving 1Mpps
> 
> and if I set net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen to 8000 I got:
> 
> - 690kpps without loss
> - 680kpps when receiving 1Mpps (fluctuating)
> 
> So the maximal throughput goes slightly down, but it seems it with the
> diff it behaves betterunder load.
> 
> Further tests are welcome!


Hi,

i'm getting similar results with this patch. Sending 1Mpps and getting
750Kpps. I didn't see OACTIVE flag even when generating 14Mpps :)

PF=no
ddb.console=1
kern.pool_debug=0
net.inet.ip.forwarding=1
net.inet.ip.ifq.maxlen=8192
kern.maxclusters=32768

One cpu...
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2430 v2 @ 2.50GHz, 2800.01 MHz

ix0 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 "Intel 82599" rev 0x01: msi, address
90:e2:ba:33:af:ec
ix1 at pci2 dev 0 function 1 "Intel 82599" rev 0x01: msi, address
90:e2:ba:33:af:ed

Reply via email to