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 BD87BA04C0; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:11:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F25B1BEE4; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:11:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lj1-f169.google.com (mail-lj1-f169.google.com [209.85.208.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEBC1BE97; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:11:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lj1-f169.google.com with SMTP id q2so1676892ljg.7; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:11:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xfXPCfEvc+1+a5e+ljDy66uTe1rLAbCNaZGmeGmzD0M=; b=GbiWOjr7qYpXJyb3uyhuRWyjK/T+qwYDKfnRtY63tThQnPkePTk9dWnkD1M7vwjNLx ekkXUmVXKLyG/ghr9A8AXsXTg5lzPjmaZBXq8Wm5mPXYcprDZyjFI6NakVq4U3qKehtC tqYRV28V+KsnzLMIedB67NlttxClaDWoBq4XWOEDyWzN1DZ7ItK4mkp+UaRHhs6iVxmy TLUMUBZZP4uJT6t8y5RzYzn2KINy21L33v5A4oJYxIyh9VmWbCc5z8bwQ8YyO/ktlUUY MwSFHHsUC60zJDbCoWDSQ6Pa08I0ucnCe2fbi4CqAKhS2sd3hmFRk6QFk5PPpKwOpKF5 rY3Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xfXPCfEvc+1+a5e+ljDy66uTe1rLAbCNaZGmeGmzD0M=; b=Ds2eSK28fPMHYm5TsqREAgbF3LNachFFQV+TdmJnrlsrXF3WM8UUB+Rwei+7q163va McQTFYkory3oEOpLvV1LWDpphobY0ceQuGRaT62VD21+xMJGcYbh0gV05EbPWzM+bdaQ IvjNhW9tOMlivTPq0TcPVnA7nPnV9fXZvaREyVSOk+e8Ywa09wpHqdWhqwM13jqcSuDC y88Lp+6E8ldzuGiXZgT0U8nS+AktQaTvpJQUB6S4zIzhlhYgfWwyNIz5XmV6XHuWTl4X WtIjJZpA5z9rgxSqayvAP81DdZpRR3z1dcxuvOltUcVWeMKlBSj6hKlLj/sEOMLwngdl kCWw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUDNvKI0qMtgY+sUb5HjgCTO0MYEyPmEFSozgsnFC6PPfGpMva5 WPiBAssrgw4sm+f3fC5VBkz3I6b4Hewkpp+9MPQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqydvg68ngmv2Z5Flayby4YLUll4trxuDwAEOjFmHN/LkbLrUjSgleC0Ghh1rEML58i5IHvhz77VwekD4QYOzHA= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a410:: with SMTP id p16mr1825549ljn.46.1573636276839; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:11:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191113083217.GC4841@platinum> In-Reply-To: <20191113083217.GC4841@platinum> From: Venumadhav Josyula Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:41:04 +0530 Message-ID: To: Olivier Matz Cc: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org, Venumadhav Josyula Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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 Oliver, *> Could you give some more details about you use case? (hugepage size, number of objects, object size, additional mempool flags, ...)* Ours in telecom product, we support multiple rats. Let us take example of 4G case where we act as an gtpu proxy. =C2=B7 Hugepage size :- 2 Mb =C2=B7 *rte_mempool_create in param* o { name=3D=E2=80=9Dgtpu-mem=E2=80=9D, o n=3D1500000, o elt_size=3D224, o cache_size=3D0, o private_data_size=3D0, o mp_init=3DNULL, o mp_init_arg=3DNULL, o obj_init=3DNULL, o obj_init_arg=3DNULL, o socket_id=3Drte_socket_id(), o flags=3DMEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT } *> Did you manage to reproduce it in a small test example? We could do some profiling to investigate.* No I would love to try that ? Are there examples ? Thanks, Regards, Venu On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 14:02, Olivier Matz wrote: > 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 ) fr= om > > > memory perspective ? > > Could you give some more details about you use case? (hugepage size, numb= er > 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 >