From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040C7FA43
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:35:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2017 04:35:42 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,249,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="32135249"
Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.220.38])
 ([10.237.220.38])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jan 2017 04:35:41 -0800
To: Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmitinov@brain4net.com>
References: <1483053795-8489-1-git-send-email-s.vyazmitinov@brain4net.com>
 <4316d3de-8159-fd34-8515-f82ba33b31e8@intel.com>
 <CAK_zqSO5U7JQnwChS=1Emp_ZPc_+TixZiT6hBDqv846GtQEs9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Message-ID: <1d063572-a495-ce22-b605-7c748f980b61@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:35:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK_zqSO5U7JQnwChS=1Emp_ZPc_+TixZiT6hBDqv846GtQEs9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] kni: fast data availability check in
	thread_single loop
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:35:44 -0000

On 1/18/2017 11:05 AM, Sergey Vyazmitinov wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com
> <mailto:ferruh.yigit@intel.com>> wrote:
> 

<...>

>     &knet->kni_list_head, list) {
>     > +     for (i = 0; i < KNI_RX_DATA_LOOP_NUM; ++i) {
> 
>     When there are multiple KNI interfaces, and lets assume there is traffic
>     too, this will behave like:
> 
>     KNI1x2500 data_packets + KNI2x2500 data_packets .... KNI10x2500
> 
>     After data packets, KNI1 resp_packet + KNI2 resp_packets ...
> 
>     Won't this scenario also may cause latency? And perhaps jitter according
>     KNI interface traffic loads?
> 
>     This may be good for some use cases, but not sure if this is good
>     for all.
> 
> We can decrease KNI_RX_DATA_LOOP_NUM to some reasonable value.
> I can make test to find lower bound.

I believe the effect of these changes differ per use case, and load on
interfaces, may not work as well for everybody.

> Also, the point is in fast check for a new data in interface rx queue.
> May be will be better add some kind of break after several kni_net_rx calls.
> Without them loop ends very quickly.
> Anyway, this patch decrease average latency in my case from 4.5ms to 

4.5ms is too slow, can there be any other issue?

> 0.011ms in ping test with 100000 packets.

<...>