Top strangeness
EM1897 at aol.com
EM1897 at aol.com
Thu Feb 10 14:40:35 PST 2005
In a message dated 2/10/2005 3:05:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, Matthew Dillon
<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>:Ok, well I decided to do a little more testing before I dismantled my
testbed.
>:What I found is that I get the following:
>:
>:Network load = 15K pps: System 5% Interrupt 9-12%
>:
>:Network load = 34Kpps: System 10% Interrupt 10-14%
>:
>:(the interrupt number bounces around a bit)
>:
>:Something doesn't seem right. Generally the load increases are linear for
>:this sort of test. The interrupt load seems about the same for what should
>:be twice the load. Even if no additional interrupts were generated I can't
see
>:that the interrupt work could be that similar for double the load.
>
> This sounds about right, actually. The EM device is aggregating
> packets and thus the interrupt code becomes more efficient at higher
> loads. It's also tight enough that it probably fits entirely in the
cpu's
> L1 cache.
I find that difficult to fathom. If that were the case you should also see
such efficiencies in FreeBSD and its typically pretty linear. Is there a
way to reset the counters in vmstat so that I can monitor the marginal
interrupt rate?
More information about the Users
mailing list