lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Gigabit/SMP performance problem
From
Date
The numbers I got are taking into account packet drops. I think that the 
point where performance starts to go down is when an interface is dropping
more than a couple hundred packets per second (at least in my testing). In
my testing scenario, traffic is perfectly distributed across interfaces
and I have bound the irqs using smp_affinity. Unfortunately, the
performance gain is small if any.

Avery Fay





Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
01/03/2003 05:31 PM


To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>, Avery Fay <avery_fay@symantec.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Gigabit/SMP performance problem


On Friday 03 January 2003 15:36, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

...

Monitor for dropped packets when increasing int delay. At least on the
older
e1000 adapters, you would get dropped packets, etc, making the problem
worse
in other areas.
>
> Makes sense, increasing the delays should reduce the interrupt load.
>
> > I'm using 3 Intel PRO/1000 MT Dual Port Server adapters as well as 2
> > onboard Intel PRO/1000 ports. The adapters use the 82546EB chips. I
> > believe that the onboard ports use the same although I'm not sure.
> >
> > Should I get rid of IRQ load balancing? And what do you mean
> > "Intel broke the P4's interrupt routing"?
>
> P3's distributed interrupts round-robin amongst cpus. P4's send
> everything to CPU 0. If you put irq_balance on, it'll spread
> them around, but any given interrupt is still only handled by
> one CPU (as far as I understand the code). If you hammer one
> adaptor, does that generate more interrupts than 1 cpu can handle?
> (turn irq balance off by sticking a return at the top of balance_irq,
> and hammer one link, see how much CPU power that burns).

Another problem you may have is that irq_balance is random, and sometimes
more
than one interrupt is serviced by the same cpu at the same. Actually, let
me
clarify. In your case if your netowrk load was "even" across the
adapters,
ideally you would want cpu0 handling the first 4 adapters and cpu1
handling
the last 4 adapters. With irq_balance, this is usually not the case.
There
will be times where one cpu is doing more work than the other, possibly
becomming a bottleneck.

Now, there was some code in SuSE's kernel (SuSE 8.0, 2.4.18) which did a
round
robin static assingment of interrupt to cpu. In your case, all even
interrupt numbers would go to cpu0 and all odd interrupt numbers would go
to
cpu1. Since you have exactly 4 adapters in even interrupts and 4 on odd
interrupts, that would work perfectly. Now, that doesn't mean there is
some
other problem, like PCI bandwidth, but it's a start. Also, you might be
able
to emulate this with irq affinity (/proc/irq/<num>/smp_affnity) but last
time
I tried it on P4, it didn't work at all -No interrupts!

-Andrew



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.036 / U:3.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site