From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?S3J6eXN6dG9mIE9sxJlkemtp?= Subject: Re: bnx2/BCM5709: why 5 interrupts on a 4 core system (2.6.33.3) Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 21:49:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4BF04C2F.1050407@ans.pl> References: <4BF0465A.5030307@ans.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: "netdev@vger.kernel.org" To: Michael Chan Return-path: Received: from bizon.gios.gov.pl ([195.187.34.71]:48241 "EHLO bizon.gios.gov.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753330Ab0EPTtJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 May 2010 15:49:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BF0465A.5030307@ans.pl> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-05-16 21:24, Krzysztof Ol=C4=99dzki wrote: > On 2010-05-16 20:51, Michael Chan wrote: >> Krzysztof Oledzki wrote: >> >>> >>> Why the driver registers 5 interrupts instead of 4? How to >>> limit it to 4? >>> >> >> The first vector (eth0-0) handles link interrupt and other slow >> path events. It also has an RX ring for non-IP packets that are >> not hashed by the RSS hash. The majority of the rx packets should >> be hashed to the rx rings eth0-1 - eth0-4, so I would assign these >> vectors to different CPUs. > > Thank you for your prompt response. > > In my case the first vector must be handling something more: > - "ping -f 192.168.0.1" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 and eth= 1-4 > - "ping -f 192.168.0.2" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 and eth= 1-3 > - "ping -f 192.168.0.3" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 and eth= 1-1 > - "ping -f 192.168.0.7" increases interrupts on both eth1-0 and eth= 1-2 > > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 > 67: 1563979 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge = eth1-0 > 68: 1072869 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge = eth1-1 > 69: 137905 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge = eth1-2 > 70: 259246 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge = eth1-3 > 71: 760252 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge = eth1-4 > > As you can see, eth1-1 + eth1-2 + eth1-3 + eth1-4 ~=3D eth1-0. > > So, it seems that TX or RX is always handled by the first vector. > I'll try to find if it is TX or RX. > > BTW: I'm using .1Q vlans over bonding, does it change anything? It looks like TX for locally generated packets is always performed on=20 eth1-0. I guess it should look differently for forwarded packets? Best regards, Krzysztof Ol=C4=99dzki