Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted text
> Chris Friesen a écrit :
> 
>> I've done some further digging, and it appears that one of the 
>> problems we may be facing is very high instantaneous traffic rates.
>>
>> Instrumentation showed up to 222K packets/sec for short periods (at 
>> least 1.1 ms, possibly longer), although the long-term average is down 
>> around 14-16K packets/sec.
> 
> 
> Instrumentation done where exactly ?

I added some code to e1000_clean_rx_irq() to track rx_fifo drops, total 
packets received, and an accurate timestamp.

If rx_fifo errors changed, it would dump the information.

quoted text
>> Is there anything else we can do to minimize the latency of network 
>> packet processing and avoid having to crank the rx ring size up so high?

quoted text
> You have some tasks that disable softirqs too long. Sometimes, bumping 
> RX ring size is OK (but you will still have delays), sometimes it is not 
> an option, since 4096 is the limit on current hardware.

I added some instrumentation to take timestamps in __do_softirq() as 
well.  Based on these timestamps, I can see the following code sequence:

2374604616 usec, start processing softirqs in __do_softirq()
2374610337 usec, log values in e1000_clean_rx_irq()
2374611411 usec, log values in e1000_clean_rx_irq()

In between the successive calls to e1000_clean_rx_irq() the rx_fifo 
counts went up.

Does anyone have any patchsets to track down what softirqs are taking a 
long time, and/or who's disabling softirqs?

Chris
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/