Some data on lesser worthy cards (i.e 10/100) on 2.4.7
can be found at:
http://www.cyberus.ca/~hadi/247-res/
cheers,
jamal
On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Robert Olsson wrote:
>
>
> Hello!
>
> Jamal mentioned some about the polling efforts for Linux. I can give some
> experimental data here with GIGE. Motivation, implantation etc is in paper
> to presented at USENIX Oakland.
>
> Below a IP forwarding test. Injected 10 Million 64 byte packets into eth0 at
> a speed of 890.000 p/s received and routed and TX:ed on eth1.
>
> PIII @ 933 MHz. Kernel UP 2.4.10 with polling patch the are NIC's e1000
> eth0 (irq=24) and eth1 (irq=26)
>
>
> Iface MTU Met RX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVR TX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP TX-OVR Flags
> eth0 1500 0 4031309 7803725 7803725 5968699 22 0 0 0
> BRU
> eth1 1500 0 18 0 0 0 4031305 0 0 0 BRU
>
>
> The RX-ERR, RX-DRP are bugs from the e1000 driver. Anyway we getting 40% of
> packet storm routed. With a estimated throughput is about 350.000 p/s
>
> irq CPU0
> 24: 80652 IO-APIC-level e1000
> 26: 41 IO-APIC-level e1000
>
> The for RX (polling) we use only 24 interrupts. TX is mitigated (not polled)
> in this run. We see a lot more interrupts for same amount of packets. I think
> we can actually tune this a bit... And I should also say that RxIntDelay=0
> (e1000 driver). So there is no latency before the driver register for polling
> by kernel.
>
> USER PID %CPU %MEM SIZE RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
> root 3 3.0 0.0 0 0 ? SWN 12:51 0:11 (ksoftirqd_CPU0)
>
> The polling (softirq) now handled by ksoftirqd but I have seen a path from
> Ingo that schedules without the need for ksoftirqd.
>
> Also note that during poll we disable only RX interrupts so all other device
> interrupts/functions are handled properly.
>
> And tulip variants of this is in production use and seems very solid. The
> kernel code part holds ANK-trademark. :-)
>
> Cheers.
>
> --ro
>
|