On Mon, 2024-02-26 at 19:09 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> we don't have any information about the overall workload,
During measurements nothing was running except iperf3
> other interrupt sources on CPU0 and their frequency. That'd need to
> be investigated with instrumentation and might unearth some
> completely different underlying reason causing this behavior.
I made simple bash script for benchmark enp14s0 on each of CPU core.
#!/usr/bin/env bash
for i in {0..31}
do
smp_affinity=$(echo 'obase=16; '$((2 ** i)) | bc)
echo "echo $smp_affinity > /proc/irq/84/smp_affinity"
echo $smp_affinity > /proc/irq/84/smp_affinity
echo 'iperf3 -c primary-ws.local -t 5 -p 5000 -P 1'
iperf3 -c primary-ws.local -t 5 -p 5000 -P 1
done
And attach here results of iperf3 for kernels 6.7.0 and 6.8.0-rc6.
Which once again makes sure that CPU0 is a bad option in both cases.
And any other CPU does not necessarily 23 allow the network interface
to operate at the limit of the capabilities of the network cable.
I also attach /proc/interrupts I hope this helps clear things up.
I don't know how else to help you. What information to provide.
About repeatability my "unlucky" scenario.
I have two MSI MPG B650I EDGE WIFI motherboards and this problem
happened both at the same time.
It seems the problem has always been there, we just never noticed it.
--
Best Regards,
Mike Gavrilov.
<<attachment: benchmarking-6.7.0-all-cores.zip>>
<<attachment: benchmarking-6.8.0-0.rc6-all-cores.zip>>
<<attachment: proc-interrupts.zip>>
