From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: Breno Leitao <leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
rick.jones2@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000 performance issue in 4 simultaneous links
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:48:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <47879DE4.8080603@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1200068444.9349.20.camel@cafe>
Breno Leitao a écrit :
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 12:52 -0800, Brandeburg, Jesse wrote:
>
>> Breno Leitao wrote:
>>
>>> When I run netperf in just one interface, I get 940.95 * 10^6 bits/sec
>>> of transfer rate. If I run 4 netperf against 4 different interfaces, I
>>> get around 720 * 10^6 bits/sec.
>>>
>> I hope this explanation makes sense, but what it comes down to is that
>> combining hardware round robin balancing with NAPI is a BAD IDEA. In
>> general the behavior of hardware round robin balancing is bad and I'm
>> sure it is causing all sorts of other performance issues that you may
>> not even be aware of.
>>
> I've made another test removing the ppc IRQ Round Robin scheme, bonded
> each interface (eth6, eth7, eth16 and eth17) to different CPUs (CPU1,
> CPU2, CPU3 and CPU4) and I also get around around 720 * 10^6 bits/s in
> average.
>
> Take a look at the interrupt table this time:
>
> 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
>
>
> I also tried to bound all the 4 interface IRQ to a single CPU (CPU0)
> using the noirqdistrib boot paramenter, and the performance was a little
> worse.
>
> Rick,
> The 2 interface test that I showed in my first email, was run in two
> different NIC. Also, I am running netperf with the following command
> "netperf -H <hostname> -T 0,8" while netserver is running without any
> argument at all. Also, running vmstat in parallel shows that there is no
> bottleneck in the CPU. Take a look:
>
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- -----cpu------
> r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st
> 2 0 0 6714732 16168 227440 0 0 8 2 203 21 0 1 98 0 0
> 0 0 0 6715120 16176 227440 0 0 0 28 16234 505 0 16 83 0 1
> 0 0 0 6715516 16176 227440 0 0 0 0 16251 518 0 16 83 0 1
> 1 0 0 6715252 16176 227440 0 0 0 1 16316 497 0 15 84 0 1
> 0 0 0 6716092 16176 227440 0 0 0 0 16300 520 0 16 83 0 1
> 0 0 0 6716320 16180 227440 0 0 0 1 16354 486 0 15 84 0 1
>
>
>
If your machine has 8 cpus, then your vmstat output shows a bottleneck :)
(100/8 = 12.5), so I guess one of your CPU is full
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-11 16:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-10 16:17 e1000 performance issue in 4 simultaneous links Breno Leitao
2008-01-10 16:36 ` Ben Hutchings
2008-01-10 16:51 ` Jeba Anandhan
2008-01-10 17:31 ` Breno Leitao
2008-01-10 18:18 ` Kok, Auke
2008-01-10 18:37 ` Rick Jones
2008-01-10 18:26 ` Rick Jones
2008-01-10 20:52 ` Brandeburg, Jesse
2008-01-11 1:28 ` David Miller
2008-01-11 11:09 ` Benny Amorsen
2008-01-12 1:41 ` David Miller
2008-01-12 5:13 ` Denys Fedoryshchenko
2008-01-30 16:57 ` Kok, Auke
2008-01-11 16:20 ` Breno Leitao
2008-01-11 16:48 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2008-01-11 17:36 ` Denys Fedoryshchenko
2008-01-11 18:45 ` Breno Leitao
2008-01-11 18:19 ` Breno Leitao
2008-01-11 18:48 ` Rick Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=47879DE4.8080603@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=leitao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rick.jones2@hp.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).