Proposed 6.2 em RELEASE patch
mike at sentex.net
Fri Nov 10 22:21:13 UTC 2006
At 05:00 PM 11/10/2006, Jack Vogel wrote:
>On 11/10/06, Mike Tancsa <mike at sentex.net> wrote:
>>Some more tests. I tried again with what was committed to today's
>>RELENG_6. I am guessing its pretty well the same patch. Polling is
>>the only way to avoid livelock at a high pps rate. Does anyone know
>>of any simple tools to measure end to end packet loss ? Polling will
>>end up dropping some packets and I want to be able to compare. Same
>>hardware from the previous post.
>The commit WAS the last patch I posted. SO, making sure I understood you,
>you are saying that POLLING is doing better than FAST_INTR, or only
>better than the legacy code that went in with my merge?
The last set of tests I posted are ONLY with what is in today's
RELENG_6-- i.e. the latest commit. I did a few variations on the
driver-- first with
#define EM_FAST_INTR 1
and one with polling in the kernel.
With a decent packet rate passing through, the box will lockup. Not
sure if I am just hitting the limits of the PCIe bus, or interrupt
moderation is not kicking in, or this is a case of "Doctor, it hurts
when I send a lot of packets through"... "Well, dont do that"
Using polling prevents the lockup, but it will of course drop
packets. This is for firewalls with a fairly high bandwidth rate, as
well as I need it to be able to survive a decent DDoS attack. I am
not looking for 1Mpps, but something more than 100Kpps
More information about the freebsd-stable