From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0173B29C6
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lfbn-1-5920-128.w90-110.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.110.126.128]
 helo=droids-corp.org)
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1gyETY-0001Uw-R0; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:31:14 +0100
Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
 Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:00 +0100
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:29:00 +0100
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, arybchenko@solarflare.com, bruce.richardson@intel.com,
 konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, gavin.hu@arm.com,
 Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com, nd@arm.com, thomas@monjalon.net
Message-ID: <20190225112900.rg3atiok7fmhz42g@platinum>
References: <20190222160655.3346-1-gage.eads@intel.com>
 <20190222160655.3346-8-gage.eads@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190222160655.3346-8-gage.eads@intel.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 7/7] mempool/stack: add non-blocking stack
	mempool handler
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:29:03 -0000

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:06:55AM -0600, Gage Eads wrote:
> This commit adds support for non-blocking (linked list based) stack mempool
> handler.
> 
> In mempool_perf_autotest the lock-based stack outperforms the
> non-blocking handler for certain lcore/alloc count/free count
> combinations*, however:
> - For applications with preemptible pthreads, a lock-based stack's
>   worst-case performance (i.e. one thread being preempted while
>   holding the spinlock) is much worse than the non-blocking stack's.
> - Using per-thread mempool caches will largely mitigate the performance
>   difference.
> 
> *Test setup: x86_64 build with default config, dual-socket Xeon E5-2699 v4,
> running on isolcpus cores with a tickless scheduler. The lock-based stack's
> rate_persec was 0.6x-3.5x the non-blocking stack's.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gage Eads <gage.eads@intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>