From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Breno Leitao Subject: Re: e1000 performance issue in 4 simultaneous links Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:41 -0200 Message-ID: <1200075581.9349.33.camel@cafe> References: <1199981839.8931.35.camel@cafe> <36D9DB17C6DE9E40B059440DB8D95F5204275B04@orsmsx418.amr.corp.intel.com> <1200068444.9349.20.camel@cafe> <47879DE4.8080603@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "Brandeburg, Jesse" , rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Eric Dumazet Return-path: Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com ([32.104.18.25]:57792 "EHLO igw2.br.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754917AbYAKSTw (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:19:52 -0500 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D452B17F4DE for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:14:06 -0200 (BRDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m0BIJiOv3661872 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:47 -0200 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m0BIJi2C016087 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:19:44 -0200 In-Reply-To: <47879DE4.8080603@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 17:48 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Breno Leitao a =C3=A9crit : > > Take a look at the interrupt table this time:=20 > > > > io-dolphins:~/leitao # cat /proc/interrupts | grep eth[1]*[67] > > 277: 15 1362450 13 14 13 = 14 15 18 XICS Level eth6 > > 278: 12 13 1348681 19 13 = 15 10 11 XICS Level eth7 > > 323: 11 18 17 1348426 18 = 11 11 13 XICS Level eth16 > > 324: 12 16 11 19 1402709 = 13 14 11 XICS Level eth17 > > > > > > =20 > If your machine has 8 cpus, then your vmstat output shows a bottlenec= k :) >=20 > (100/8 =3D 12.5), so I guess one of your CPU is full Well, if I run top while running the test, I see this load distributed among the CPUs, mainly those that had a NIC IRC bonded. Take a look: Tasks: 133 total, 2 running, 130 sleeping, 0 stopped, 1 zombie Cpu0 : 0.3%us, 19.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 73.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, = 6.6%st Cpu1 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 75.1%id, 0.0%wa, 0.7%hi, 24.3%si, = 0.0%st Cpu2 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 73.1%id, 0.0%wa, 0.7%hi, 26.2%si, = 0.0%st Cpu3 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 76.1%id, 0.0%wa, 0.7%hi, 23.3%si, = 0.0%st Cpu4 : 0.0%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 70.4%id, 0.7%wa, 0.3%hi, 28.2%si, = 0.0%st Cpu5 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, = 0.0%st Cpu6 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 99.7%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.3%si, = 0.0%st Cpu7 : 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, = 0.0%st Note that this average scenario doesn't change during the entire benchmarking test. Thanks! --=20 Breno Leitao