From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr130071.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.13.71]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44222C54 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:58:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nDIDqkdNh6F6ptmeXFCq+AZuyHcGxI0gAGjpK4WOhpE=; b=lG97TYyzK/vsMPCsZwUcIN0/apOsySpJ4HQLVBnhOWMYpvQesZVLg96lEQQ/OpNM5EXqIID3wellOb+tKQJBzkhVnijIi1MH8QwbK1bX8iB7yneXPEk9zwEaSFEEEEm81rIgM3FB2c6Zf2+Uz1P7JkbSjrt3GqGHef1vjLaIaaQ= Received: from AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (20.178.89.23) by AM6PR08MB4549.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (20.179.18.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.15; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15 +0000 Received: from AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a019:568d:d0c2:59b7]) by AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a019:568d:d0c2:59b7%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.018; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15 +0000 From: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" To: "Shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: nd , nd Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port Thread-Index: AdTzVqP8Li6X0oq3QB+FOHfNwOVcLwACIwJQ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com; x-originating-ip: [113.29.88.7] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b18dae41-7c5a-4fc9-49f5-08d6c1781d9d x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600140)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM6PR08MB4549; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM6PR08MB4549: x-ld-processed: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d,ExtAddr nodisclaimer: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 000800954F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(136003)(396003)(346002)(39850400004)(376002)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(71190400001)(71200400001)(14454004)(186003)(72206003)(66066001)(26005)(97736004)(11346002)(4326008)(478600001)(7736002)(305945005)(2906002)(446003)(74316002)(76176011)(52536014)(25786009)(2501003)(106356001)(5660300002)(55016002)(14444005)(86362001)(6116002)(6246003)(54906003)(33656002)(486006)(110136005)(55236004)(316002)(53936002)(105586002)(6436002)(7696005)(229853002)(81166006)(81156014)(53546011)(99286004)(9686003)(6506007)(102836004)(256004)(3846002)(8936002)(68736007)(476003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM6PR08MB4549; H:AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: uNGacK6n+b0Zzq8Ih4z9VDM1BrtGbNc7yFqPjkK2A/YuLSo6TlFkc68J/SZI/fgq0TzHGg0j8dX5sgIlSRqm5iumLYH6qDvfXI1Sk1uOBY3oG7HXs3d1HqSBfMrfDGE8Eaxzvu2VYNQjuRodrSFi9nXJkK+d7oP6e5b33iwddhMMn25DzhfbNSuuaDL8KiJsl1iuqDodA6u6U1lK9RT2ksHs9vFhclKgICBoIuECWs7NI94mPl2rNqgDIH4UP0rYQVNXm09H3O5L1ZWR8vJnB1A+mDB5VNJNO1GPtdsku0a+DBt2FkUbK8iTDvGBxp297yMNCNbU0VBf023ETdSXbKlzNJk8yu7AEvnj7kvIZgGQImGHWy4By97ziKkKrF75Avy/hOD5jngpDED2POKlBb82qpcSat+cVG3ELQy0QXg= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b18dae41-7c5a-4fc9-49f5-08d6c1781d9d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15.5356 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR08MB4549 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:22 -0000 Hi Shreyansh, > -----Original Message----- > From: Shreyansh Jain > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 14:48 > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ; > Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: nd ; nd > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer > pool per port >=20 > Hi Ruifeng, >=20 > [...] >=20 > > > > > > 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. >=20 > So, in case this is an optional feature, it should be fine, right? > (Obviously, assuming that my logical implementation is correct) >=20 > At my end also, I saw no drop in performance without this feature (Defaul= t) > and a decent increase with this (with separate port-core combination) on > NXP platform. >=20 > [...] Tested on LS2088A and observed 12% performance gain when 4 ports were used. I think sample_app_ug document should be updated to add the new option. Acked-by: Ruifeng Wang Regards, /Ruifeng 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 E4F50A00E6 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:58:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E576904; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:58:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR01-HE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr130071.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.13.71]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44222C54 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 09:58:21 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=nDIDqkdNh6F6ptmeXFCq+AZuyHcGxI0gAGjpK4WOhpE=; b=lG97TYyzK/vsMPCsZwUcIN0/apOsySpJ4HQLVBnhOWMYpvQesZVLg96lEQQ/OpNM5EXqIID3wellOb+tKQJBzkhVnijIi1MH8QwbK1bX8iB7yneXPEk9zwEaSFEEEEm81rIgM3FB2c6Zf2+Uz1P7JkbSjrt3GqGHef1vjLaIaaQ= Received: from AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (20.178.89.23) by AM6PR08MB4549.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (20.179.18.208) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.15; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15 +0000 Received: from AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a019:568d:d0c2:59b7]) by AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a019:568d:d0c2:59b7%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.018; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15 +0000 From: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" To: "Shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: nd , nd Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port Thread-Index: AdTzVqP8Li6X0oq3QB+FOHfNwOVcLwACIwJQ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com; x-originating-ip: [113.29.88.7] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: b18dae41-7c5a-4fc9-49f5-08d6c1781d9d x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600140)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM6PR08MB4549; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM6PR08MB4549: x-ld-processed: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d,ExtAddr nodisclaimer: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 000800954F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(136003)(396003)(346002)(39850400004)(376002)(189003)(199004)(13464003)(71190400001)(71200400001)(14454004)(186003)(72206003)(66066001)(26005)(97736004)(11346002)(4326008)(478600001)(7736002)(305945005)(2906002)(446003)(74316002)(76176011)(52536014)(25786009)(2501003)(106356001)(5660300002)(55016002)(14444005)(86362001)(6116002)(6246003)(54906003)(33656002)(486006)(110136005)(55236004)(316002)(53936002)(105586002)(6436002)(7696005)(229853002)(81166006)(81156014)(53546011)(99286004)(9686003)(6506007)(102836004)(256004)(3846002)(8936002)(68736007)(476003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM6PR08MB4549; H:AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: uNGacK6n+b0Zzq8Ih4z9VDM1BrtGbNc7yFqPjkK2A/YuLSo6TlFkc68J/SZI/fgq0TzHGg0j8dX5sgIlSRqm5iumLYH6qDvfXI1Sk1uOBY3oG7HXs3d1HqSBfMrfDGE8Eaxzvu2VYNQjuRodrSFi9nXJkK+d7oP6e5b33iwddhMMn25DzhfbNSuuaDL8KiJsl1iuqDodA6u6U1lK9RT2ksHs9vFhclKgICBoIuECWs7NI94mPl2rNqgDIH4UP0rYQVNXm09H3O5L1ZWR8vJnB1A+mDB5VNJNO1GPtdsku0a+DBt2FkUbK8iTDvGBxp297yMNCNbU0VBf023ETdSXbKlzNJk8yu7AEvnj7kvIZgGQImGHWy4By97ziKkKrF75Avy/hOD5jngpDED2POKlBb82qpcSat+cVG3ELQy0QXg= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b18dae41-7c5a-4fc9-49f5-08d6c1781d9d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Apr 2019 07:58:15.5356 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR08MB4549 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port 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: <20190415075815.xokk2xCjNCyP9438Y0BuNh3O7dbJlSzCQFvJ6SdftZg@z> Hi Shreyansh, > -----Original Message----- > From: Shreyansh Jain > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 14:48 > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ; > Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: nd ; nd > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer > pool per port >=20 > Hi Ruifeng, >=20 > [...] >=20 > > > > > > 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. >=20 > So, in case this is an optional feature, it should be fine, right? > (Obviously, assuming that my logical implementation is correct) >=20 > At my end also, I saw no drop in performance without this feature (Defaul= t) > and a decent increase with this (with separate port-core combination) on > NXP platform. >=20 > [...] Tested on LS2088A and observed 12% performance gain when 4 ports were used. I think sample_app_ug document should be updated to add the new option. Acked-by: Ruifeng Wang Regards, /Ruifeng