From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f182.google.com (mail-wr0-f182.google.com [209.85.128.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16822FDD for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:58:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f182.google.com with SMTP id w43so202007528wrb.0 for ; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MO1OeLjaJzfT513xD+VcSWKYN5r0IrW2ACAWFTkpTDk=; b=AqJXBbEymrWoYokEkv/n682LlUe7ZSzus4y8ZlUQWj/v1rurrcU27utVgGOMY1oCSl uM6yI15QZu6RaUgVOh/FZPSbMu+uAdodyec2zYZujRUNdo4hOC7RNjH/DGPja7TDHkpB cWC5FpDy/+akQ39UrnDblDTZk4iOMgGr+0yl74350D7VdKj1HOhzEYHj5RClt7O3SmRq 7x/ZnatHV3LNwtWXCL8NypM07OXbkbl1NNPqI4qHktnJcn8BOgyGNHLp+jhsXq+QQwIT avXUiXOLyeL8vNC3RF9U9qJqZONxKr4kDQICtmHoVhV1SP2RDUrLIk3pYcb3Gh5tUQ1V 848g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MO1OeLjaJzfT513xD+VcSWKYN5r0IrW2ACAWFTkpTDk=; b=fbLDgy6q9LTvFshR3s7toOMIhshS0uRV1cmHdKa4O6NX7COQdmQlvQVdXwDirr5gTp syV5bJgyjrnXUF/bG0g+XuiQ/oC/bXT/m9VjbPqC47F6Gc9qLWbTekVuHW07h6HkbRuR lO3/LXqMjV5vaTPna4wj60k48GrN4qYrQl7lyNgy5HwFR3Hi42/fYikpxW+FgiVPiqRG F7pfyI2A//4snjt3MBVswSndBeBLwhSL7f+5wdaQr4YGdBZqr/KgAeOf6gbXFMcT/LQ3 wf4h/CUHhIQkpNmgMZWtGaLeStktfhkCNp1e1ffhlxViPN7sAY2XZr58gZCgoXZxoXLj OLJw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0c7hiWn0TjSA5BgPTZBMPe6znjZGR17fr8/DezbwqFMXk7jNQ50EJv5YqIeygfVK1E X-Received: by 10.223.152.16 with SMTP id v16mr19409385wrb.8.1491292731546; Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from neon (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a18sm21209994wrc.58.2017.04.04.00.58.51 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:58:49 +0200 From: Olivier MATZ To: Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "Chilikin, Andrey" , "jblunck@infradead.org" , "nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" Message-ID: <20170404095849.24fbad19@neon> In-Reply-To: <2731871.jrfrpyQStK@xps13> References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20170331105925.135c7377@platinum> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE30C3@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> <2731871.jrfrpyQStK@xps13> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 07:58:52 -0000 On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:15:25 +0200 Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson > > > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss > > > > > with 1c/1t (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here > > > > > is what I have in MPPS: > > > > > > > > > > 1c/1t 1c/2t > > > > > 53.3 58.7 current > > > > > 52.1 58.8 original patchset > > > > > 53.3 58.8 removed patches 3 and 9 > > > > > 53.1 58.7 with konstantin's patch > > > > > > > > > > So we have 2 options here: > > > > > > > > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, > > > > > by the way) 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we > > > > > have something that really no impact > > > > > > > > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in > > > > > terms of cycles per packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we > > > > can afford to spend a little more time looking at this before > > > > we decide. I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with > > > > i40e with Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double > > > > check the other possible issues he reported in his other > > > > emails. While I don't want this patchset held up for a long > > > > time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is probably needed on it. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;) > > > > > > I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly, > > > I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it > > > is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably > > > one of the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be > > > better next time. > > > > > > Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now. > > > > I am also leaning towards option 1, but agree that some extra > > testing first need to be done before making the final decision. > > BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1. > > Konstantin > > Please, can we have a conclusion now? I think we sholuld go with proposition 1, I can resubmit an updated patch today. This rework is needed at least for metrics libraries. To summarize the perf data we have: - There is a small impact on Intel NICs (-0.4MPPS on ixgbe in iofwd mode according to Konstantin's test, which is less than 1%). I guess it can be optimized. - On mlx5, there is a gain (+0.8MPPS). - On sfc, there is also a gain. Any comment? Olivier