From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: weird problem Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:40:22 +0000 Message-ID: <20090630064022.GA5589@ff.dom.local> References: <4A450955.1010806@itcare.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , Eric Dumazet , Linux Network Development list To: =?us-ascii?B?PT9JU08tODg1OS0yP1E/UGF3ZT1CM19TdGFzemV3c2tpPz0=?= Return-path: Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com ([209.85.218.213]:47977 "EHLO mail-bw0-f213.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203AbZF3Gk0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:40:26 -0400 Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so3684056bwz.37 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A450955.1010806@itcare.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 26-06-2009 19:45, Pawe. Staszewski wrote: > Eric Dumazet pisze: ... >> Pawel made some reports errors in fib thread, so I am not sure he really >> tried 2.6.30 and had same oprofile results. >> >> rt_worker_func() taking 13% of cpu0 is an alarm for me :) >> And 21% of cpu0 and 34% of cpu6 taken by oprofiled seems odd too... >> >> Pawel, could you give us : >> >> grep . /proc/sys/net/ipv4/route/* >> cat /proc/interrupts >> >> on your various kernels (previous to 2.6.29, 2.6.29, 2.6.30, ...) >> >> I suspect a change in hash table size, and/or change in interrupt affinities... Btw., Pawel these eth0's don't look like affined or I miss something? Jarek P. ... > > cat /proc/interrupts > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4 > CPU5 CPU6 CPU7 ... > 29: 1139988 18351004 89662 3 0 > 1 0 3 PCI-MSI-edge eth0 > 30: 0 2 20221692 1 0 > 3 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge eth1 ... > second machine: > Linux TM_02_C1 2.6.30 #1 SMP Thu Jun 25 21:49:58 CEST 2009 i686 Intel(R) > Xeon(R) CPU 3075 @ 2.66GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > > cat /proc/interrupts > CPU0 CPU1 ... > 28: 13482 11260 PCI-MSI-edge eth2 > 29: 3 1326457765 PCI-MSI-edge eth1 > 30: 1240943198 137973134 PCI-MSI-edge eth0