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 37687A0353; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:12:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755F82C15; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:12:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-lj1-f172.google.com (mail-lj1-f172.google.com [209.85.208.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C4B2BF7; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:12:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lj1-f172.google.com with SMTP id k15so1042566lja.3; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:12:19 -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=XsgWzgKfAcz0/1ycIgrj329+Kqq5tqXjDVBGXeWTmGc=; b=N4cW/Ff0DEH/uFxtTnpnB8P3qKOjZFLJcPjxvQvgB5iomLJQjlazQvM0x2Er7ZVnAG 2uXbd3j9hXahihki5e8X/dUyRRPG9UaxeaMODJEviMS9iAJ7stchyXEH+9urlewnao3o dH4/w4gSlRifOzSQMzZ/KfYnwihVC2k2jr+XmKEEI0JjQmJYNtt3LFY2n7mgoMec7/cP MQTLunCLetS7nu17E0WzcGHLG60B+T0JlLhgklZAtWDxFUqsAh8F7IBQbjRJSpIQ3wMr libU1ZcUP/pvEQfsGO0V2yb3e38NsT0/Vkx5dMkBNsLz/cAqUQ4GPbT3HMJfwbU3PkPb pwcA== 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=XsgWzgKfAcz0/1ycIgrj329+Kqq5tqXjDVBGXeWTmGc=; b=lySpeqtVSIkHr2TFSFLMsbB0f0YYMzxqz5XoB0EzrbHy3r8Ll9tJ3XcOUEG9q/x966 v5nOufsLKfIg6JqGuEtfq8ytMynKNqWwLorr3GOCQyWqorYYx8I4NoQeFNaNWOHf4/2v xErAE513O6w5vgtKAJf8Pm8no3QeX00jlNl7OGK76Y/rs31TvbNsMpgyS98eC3vBPkSx v7/0RowSFvNHUJ9a2SZVHWgn/3QgxJjzODVAVwPF6h33Kum/jHVoVThKgGLksqUJs3kK dQK1TCSlZfkVQJkIU39nsZ6B7LXg8QXu0VNSXOXzsI1Z6ETHvcM68RJQ8NmTW13Oj/sy p4PA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX7qge5qIjUI7ONSSc9DxtxblkOlf3I0irvNBbHBbGGx32gULBS x0Umm1q1c96UwZpf2F/qJLzugkbj/JmzBkf+8MvSlqG5 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzeG+2keXXGkagEwGS9LkH516Uo7wxKnJ/xBFJKuCzUEybFRgGIm5kIDhatYfaRr+r2W11QTbgi9eSBwkeoN5o= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:2a42:: with SMTP id q63mr871000ljq.180.1573621938769; Tue, 12 Nov 2019 21:12:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Venumadhav Josyula Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:42:07 +0530 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Cc: Venumadhav Josyula Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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, 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 ? > > Any pointer are welcome. > > Thanks & regards > Venu >