From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A518A0353; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:32:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE061BEF0; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:32:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5519F1BEDB for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:32:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id b3so1232487wrs.13 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:32:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=r40TLFcNlINcnAfgBOwaGmNrZ/9qQkzKi4k398MqJaY=; b=KTdjTX7MJOvd7hBogF9Crd3adlJtbCDIq0aGKDD6+sRtNqkb482+s1K1t2RB/GhO+/ xqh8t/6u57UBcHGfjTr8MKLVMxUwVcNhCvG6SXzRZP9ak+v/uuTss66cw/vhwRe5kFUN f/eJ0sBvcv84poA/LeTRrSNBAEXQUBzx8p2/ZUFh+MgurP38ak/fAtdViTN8HFzV/8H7 3N0nr8xTXoY7Nfz4jEgsfuMVSh4BtPOpxwiNHWWNZezEM1cjcYOm/+WtTcSb3bFyddAU XTZyKtSHCHu7Z8V2OMpXrjhnL96bmTHr+pbmeUe7mXvvg3C24/8ZRXedK7uNa2qQBQuA IpTQ== 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:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=r40TLFcNlINcnAfgBOwaGmNrZ/9qQkzKi4k398MqJaY=; b=HHNSRmX+gIe1Pph0AVzZJyyEVL7uNnSXKlCtEaJqqFFIqD7vB/UdgmgqmLYTBmzlae ET9cSqt6vjL9HsKihdl/0USBt9qKPZvAUDPLReyfHCtPCx1Lem8EDB4LX2DNumdzf+TG 60CMinI461+GFQr/uQURdRw0fsdvJ8Jq0UcyQUDkJEwUNTuznI2eeYt8zM+bDPQ6qM72 g/DbFDaiCzjdKIrDHvbZBv8F3zub8u41XD1uFXwzu3zY6nIXP3Sa63Eoc+UK7TA/Tk8D PVGjMGcqHqfB4eHF4Wmg2OFwXTFeNook/OjHTULzai1tdiSxK/0qaQmKkw8cxQtBGEZM TXxw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV7ClBMH1QfwIwB9c0vSRVbUoG5EpFBsyzr6Nu67SyFa25vljQU CyX232zBRLE4BvgiYC0Ntr/SXA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxDgf0Wo2DOD4Ex7QBuLAvr0mNLF4aB3yJQTcPeKLZwoNHpEwSwIOtcBEJyjycc0MA8OUCQSg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:eb8d:: with SMTP id t13mr1499437wrn.321.1573633938833; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:32:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a6000226b0fffeed02fc.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb0c:5:a600:226:b0ff:feed:2fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j63sm1477287wmj.46.2019.11.13.00.32.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 13 Nov 2019 00:32:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:32:17 +0100 From: Olivier Matz To: Venumadhav Josyula Cc: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, Venumadhav Josyula Message-ID: <20191113083217.GC4841@platinum> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] time taken for allocation of mempool. 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" Hi Venu, On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:42:07AM +0530, Venumadhav Josyula wrote: > Hi, > > Few more points > > Operating system : Centos 7.6 > Logging mechanism : syslog > > We have logged using syslog before the call and syslog after the call. > > Thanks & Regards > Venu > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 10:37, Venumadhav Josyula wrote: > > > Hi , > > We are using 'rte_mempool_create' for allocation of flow memory. This has > > been there for a while. We just migrated to dpdk-18.11 from dpdk-17.05. Now > > here is problem statement > > > > Problem statement : > > In new dpdk ( 18.11 ), the 'rte_mempool_create' take approximately ~4.4 > > sec for allocation compared to older dpdk (17.05). We have som 8-9 mempools > > for our entire product. We do upfront allocation for all of them ( i.e. > > when dpdk application is coming up). Our application is run to completion > > model. > > > > Questions:- > > i) is that acceptable / has anybody seen such a thing ? > > ii) What has changed between two dpdk versions ( 18.11 v/s 17.05 ) from > > memory perspective ? Could you give some more details about you use case? (hugepage size, number of objects, object size, additional mempool flags, ...) Did you manage to reproduce it in a small test example? We could do some profiling to investigate. Thanks for the feedback. Olivier