From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2118EA0096 for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 13:04:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693172BB0; Mon, 6 May 2019 13:04:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34522BAB for ; Mon, 6 May 2019 13:04:35 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1342; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557140675; x=1558350275; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Rr5PN2tMBZdkMWmPrwNyGB4Ule7RmHjwSuQt9V6GNxA=; b=GY+x/xyAA+q+yM7qaye6SZxU4Q+iSydUO+HqRMLjtsQhHQm+DlOaQqvB lRTrHtuyuNIFdOnDLyQZuKNsNKRsvbfLXA/hLJYO2CLzvPFZc9C6v7VhX 3wTAEAKckUq7lLQlTLxedmeDMx3Wr/uerjtZ/9/+OAC0kWHg7KkrROKMl s=; IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3ALa+LQR/Od7fJNv9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+8ZR7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVcKMDEThLfnsRyc7B89FElRi+iLzPA=3D=3D?= X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ANAAD5E9Bc/5FdJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUgQBAQEBCwGBPVADgT4gBAsUFAqHTQOPAIIyJX6WJoEugSQ?= =?us-ascii?q?DVA4BAS2EQAKCDiM1CA4BAwEBBAEBAgECbRwMhUoBAQEBAgESKAYBATcBBAs?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQgRBAEBAR4QMh0IAgQKBAUigwCBawMODwECAaASAoE1iF+CIIJ5AQEFhHk?= =?us-ascii?q?Ygg4JgTIBi00XgUA/gREnDBOCFzU+hESDPIImpzYJAoIJkkUblUieDIJ4AgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAUCDgEBBYFRAzOBVnAVZQGCQT6BUYNvilNygSmOdQGBIAEB?= X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,437,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="469423701" Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 06 May 2019 11:04:33 +0000 Received: from XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (xch-aln-012.cisco.com [173.36.7.22]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x46B4X18008140 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 6 May 2019 11:04:34 GMT Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (173.36.7.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 6 May 2019 06:04:33 -0500 Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 6 May 2019 06:04:32 -0500 Received: from NAM02-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 6 May 2019 07:04:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-cisco-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=29nRsaX37hYAGBJOXEyX2sUs7R2PyS0j8FyoXof8I0s=; b=TTBSQPq/85+wyfU34vO0b4eEqBPvhZLFRyoRumPqxQWJSMps6q5o6sWuq1k+Lf3eHoGmPczQvOso9qRr9AzsQkxTPQjOKTRSjwHqMrtKKdji3ga4TRkwhNgIQRUPrsumgIxlxAuiilMMzn2uMbwhpGhLMXAE5Dl2JJVls7zhayM= Received: from BYAPR11MB3239.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.177.184.76) by BYAPR11MB3847.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.178.239.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1856.12; Mon, 6 May 2019 11:04:31 +0000 Received: from BYAPR11MB3239.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::99a8:26c1:513e:5ad0]) by BYAPR11MB3239.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::99a8:26c1:513e:5ad0%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1856.012; Mon, 6 May 2019 11:04:31 +0000 From: "Damjan Marion (damarion)" To: "Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOGIES at Cisco)" CC: Honnappa Nagarahalli , Ferruh Yigit , "dev@dpdk.org" , nd Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v5] /net: memory interface (memif) Thread-Index: AQHU4KZ16NJCh3r9PESlg1+aACrGcKYdLYsAgBgjuyGAI70qEIAFIX7IgAAFuQA= Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 11:04:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190220115254.18724-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <20190322115727.4358-1-jgrajcia@cisco.com> <0762da59-4a97-474f-7d67-e3bd8daf50f2@intel.com> <1556800556778.14516@cisco.com> <1557140414503.9161@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <1557140414503.9161@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=damarion@cisco.com; x-originating-ip: [89.164.56.36] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 7841b44f-cc4c-40fd-c181-08d6d2129d6b x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR11MB3847; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR11MB3847: x-ld-processed: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e,ExtAddr x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:3631; x-forefront-prvs: 0029F17A3F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(39860400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(76176011)(37006003)(316002)(3846002)(6116002)(2616005)(99286004)(5660300002)(8936002)(50226002)(8676002)(81156014)(81166006)(2906002)(446003)(33656002)(256004)(486006)(476003)(55236004)(186003)(26005)(53546011)(54906003)(102836004)(6506007)(71200400001)(71190400001)(82746002)(83716004)(7736002)(305945005)(25786009)(6246003)(6512007)(53936002)(11346002)(4326008)(6862004)(14454004)(91956017)(66946007)(57306001)(6636002)(68736007)(478600001)(66556008)(6486002)(229853002)(66066001)(76116006)(6436002)(73956011)(86362001)(64756008)(66446008)(36756003)(66476007)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR11MB3847; H:BYAPR11MB3239.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 8Rf31qp9MMEKdWYcd4jGRVJpPRrN8ionLT2qb1x8q6ENf7TBQV5zQmqOXGBfHy4EJLkzfaxYSmdcIXjuZp8dkhEYoYNNFLOPInGOAnir5wAEB5Y5m7vbSCwSUI6kNDvupb62Tolt3V9tyZYDcmp1aLEK3GNcOzmxds7BBL+C/kA7H141ivuzDhfq8umP3AWfpt5AQX9l9RRMs61MhVIL3baEC6q/FNF36W1bPmheC6tVSegoGjB5VvGOAlr/6jVYolopOzRLLEwSJyC3vmfFIHR4ajObEaXp2kEd86MszeeuunErjpQoZpb3Oz0K457AkSRppkoqA52shyOXkeLvsdioBXl4vgNdrnwxtpiHt0+2NpHw/fkO+OIDQ5lp9cy9whhbhP2KZHBLFi6pihm2cPCSjzEyBK33CQ2iDXC0Q68= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <62AB2E1739937F4CAC70B5CFD042F86C@namprd11.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7841b44f-cc4c-40fd-c181-08d6d2129d6b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 06 May 2019 11:04:31.0972 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR11MB3847 X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.22, xch-aln-012.cisco.com X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v5] /net: memory interface (memif) 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190506110431.jFBT4g0pSlZmY86ZOPp2vcuKKY8CJGC3xqk4DEsjzrQ@z> > On 6 May 2019, at 13:00, Jakub Grajciar -X (jgrajcia - PANTHEON TECHNOLOG= IES at Cisco) wrote: >=20 >=20 > ________________________________________ > From: Honnappa Nagarahalli > Sent: Friday, May 3, 2019 6:27 AM > To: Jakub Grajciar; Ferruh Yigit; dev@dpdk.org; Honnappa Nagarahalli > Cc: nd; nd > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC v5] /net: memory interface (memif) >=20 >> On 3/22/2019 11:57 AM, Jakub Grajciar wrote: >>> Memory interface (memif), provides high performance packet transfer >>> over shared memory. >>>=20 >>> Signed-off-by: Jakub Grajciar >>=20 >=20 > <...> >=20 >> With that in mind, I believe that 23Mpps is fine performance. No >> performance target is >> defined, the goal is to be as fast as possible. > Use of C11 atomics have proven to provide better performance on weakly or= dered architectures (at least on Arm). IMO, C11 atomics should be used to i= mplement the fast path functions at least. This ensures optimal performance= on all supported architectures in DPDK. >=20 > Atomics are not required by memif driver. Correct, only thing we need is store barrier once per batch of packets, to make sure that descriptor changes are globally visible before we bump he= ad pointer. --=20 Damjan=