Neil Horman wrote:

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:20:13AM -0500, Kenny Chang wrote:
  

quoted

Neil Horman wrote:
    

quoted

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 11:48:25AM -0500, Kenny Chang wrote:
  
      

quoted

Neil Horman wrote:
    
        

quoted

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:41:23PM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
        
          

quoted

Kenny Chang a écrit :
            
            

quoted

Ah, sorry, here's the test program attached.

We've tried 2.6.28.1, but no, we haven't tried the 2.6.28.2 or the
2.6.29.-rcX.

Right now, we are trying to step through the kernel versions until we
see where the performance drops significantly.  We'll try 2.6.29-rc soon
and post the result.
                
              

2.6.29-rc contains UDP receive improvements (lockless)

Problem is multicast handling was not yet updated, but could be :)


I was asking you "cat /proc/interrupts" because I believe you might
have a problem NIC interrupts being handled by one CPU only (when having problems)

            
            

That would be expected (if irqbalance is running), and desireable, since
spreading high volume interrupts like NICS accross multiple cores (or more
specifically multiple L2 caches), is going increase your cache line miss rate
significantly and decrease rx throughput.

Although you do have a point here, if the system isn't running irqbalance, and
the NICS irq affinity is spread accross multiple L2 caches, that would be a
point of improvement performance-wise.  

Kenny, if you could provide the /proc/interrupts info along with /proc/cpuinfo
and your stats that I asked about earlier, that would be a big help.

Regards
Neil

        
          

This is for a working setup.

    
        

Are these quad core systems?  Or dual core w/ hyperthreading?  I ask because in
your working setup you have 1/2 the number of cpus' and was not sure if you
removed an entire package of if you just disabled hyperthreading.


Neil

  
      

Yeah, these are quad core systems.  The 8 cpu system is a dual-processor  
quad-core.  The other is my desktop, single cpu quad core.

    

Ok, so their separate systms then.  Did you actually experience drops on the
8-core system since the last reboot?  I ask because even when its distributed
across all 8 cores, you only have about 500 total interrupts from the NIC, and
if you did get drops, something more than just affinity is wrong.

Regardless, spreading interrupts across cores is definately a problem.  As eric
says, quad core chips are actually 2x2 cores, so you'll want to either just run
irqbalance to assign an apropriate affinity to the NIC, or manually look at each
cores physical id and sibling id, to assign affininty to a core or cores that
share an L2 cache.  If you need to, as you've found, you may need to disable msi
interrupt mode on your bnx2 driver.  That kinda stinks, but bnx2 IIRC isn't
multiqueue, so its not like msi provides you any real performance gain.

Neil

  

Hi Neil,

Yeah, we've been rebooting this system left and right switch kernels.  
The results are fairly consistent.  We were able to set the irq 
affinities, and as Wes had mentioned, what we see is that if we pin the 
softirq to 1 core, and pin the app to its sibling, we see really good 
performance, but as we load up other cores, the machine reaches a 
breaking point where all hell breaks loose and we drop a bunch.  (we 
hadn't turned off msi btw..)

While we were able to tune and adjust performance like that, in the end, 
it doesn't really explain the difference between earlier and recent 
kernels, also it doesn't quite explain the difference between machines.

You mentioned it would be good to see the interrupts for each kernel, in 
light of the above information, would it still be useful for me to 
provide that?

Kenny