From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Jim Murphy <jmurphy@arista.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.s.singh@gmail.com>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_hash thread safe
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 22:02:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180423220224.1bd37f5b@xeon-e3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180424034853.GA4546@jerin>
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 09:18:54 +0530
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 17:48:50 -0700
> > From: Jim Murphy <jmurphy@arista.com>
> > To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> > Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.s.singh@gmail.com>, dev@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_hash thread safe
> >
> > Anecdotally I've heard that the urcu hash implementation is slower than
> > rte_hash based on pure lookup performance. Has anyone considered adding RCU
> > hooks into rte_hash?
>
>
> For one of our internal project on arm64, we did try rte_hash vs URCU hash.
> Based on our results URCU lookup was much better. By default, URCU
> library does not allocate the memory from huge page, But it has some
> plugin based scheme to override the memory allocation scheme to choose
> hugepage using DPDK backend.
>
Also URCU hash table can be dynamically resized. With DPDK the application
has to guess at the number of hash heads which makes for bad behavior under
small and large workloads.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-24 5:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-12 4:12 Brijesh Singh
2018-04-23 19:40 ` Brijesh Singh
2018-04-23 23:50 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-04-24 0:21 ` Jim Murphy
2018-04-24 0:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-04-24 0:48 ` Jim Murphy
2018-04-24 1:14 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-04-24 2:13 ` Jim Murphy
2018-04-24 6:36 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-04-24 15:04 ` Brijesh Singh
2018-04-25 6:45 ` Shyam Shrivastav
2018-04-24 3:48 ` Jerin Jacob
2018-04-24 5:02 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2018-04-24 6:12 ` Honnappa Nagarahalli
2018-04-24 11:03 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-04-24 11:07 ` Bruce Richardson
2018-05-24 17:35 ` Wang, Yipeng1
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180423220224.1bd37f5b@xeon-e3 \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=brijesh.s.singh@gmail.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=jmurphy@arista.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).