Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port

[Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>]

Hi Ruifeng,

[...]

> >
> > For hardware backed pools, hardware access and exclusion are
> expensive. By
> > segregating pool/port/lcores it is possible to attain a conflict free
> path. This is
> > the use-case this patch targets.
> > And anyways, this is an optional feature.
> >
> > > Konstantin
> > >
> > > > In dual core test, both modes had nearly same performance.
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > >
> > > > My setup only has two ports which is limited.
> > > > Just want to know the per-port-pool mode has more performance gain
> > > when many ports are bound to  different cores?
> >
> > Yes, though not necessarily *many* - in my case, I had 4 ports and
> even then
> > about ~10% improvement was directly visible. I increased the port
> count and
> > I was able to touch about ~15%. I did pin each port to a separate
> core, though.
> > But again, important point is that without this feature enabled, I
> didn't see
> > any drop in performance. Did you observe any drop?
> >
> 
> No, no drop without the feature enabled in my test.

So, in case this is an optional feature, it should be fine, right?
(Obviously, assuming that my logical implementation is correct)

At my end also, I saw no drop in performance without this feature (Default) and a decent increase with this (with separate port-core combination) on NXP platform.

[...]