Return-Path: Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:64563 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932136Ab1DHPRz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:17:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Prioritizing readdirplus/getattr/lookup Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Chuck Lever In-Reply-To: <770047.76192.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:17:43 -0400 Cc: Benny Halevy , Jim Rees , Garth Gibson , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Message-Id: References: <770047.76192.qm@web65409.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> To: Andrew Klaassen Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Apr 7, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Andrew Klaassen wrote: > --- On Thu, 4/7/11, Andrew Klaassen wrote: > >> I do notice that ksoftirqd is eating up 100% of a core when >> I'm loading the server heavily. I assume that's >> because I'm not using jumbo frames and the ethernet cards >> are spitting out interrupts as fast as they're able. > > I just got myself edjumicated on smp_affinity, and now I'm able to achieve 99% CPU usage by 8 nfsd processes on 8 cores on a read-only, fully-cached workload, with ksoftirqd processes only using 1% CPU per core. > > Unfortunately, this doesn't help the "ls -l" speed. Serving NFS files is generally not CPU intensive. The problem may be lock contention on the server, but that's about as far as my expertise goes. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com