From: farooq basha <farooq.juturu@gmail.com>
To: stephen@networkplumber.org
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Regarding HQOS with run-to-completion Model
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 08:15:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+xuiv0gKOp=Ukd=Nd-b=CV3YvA8P+HpR3PiH4h+9Dus9-vK1g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250521071845.50d6f9e1@hermes.local>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2102 bytes --]
Thanks Stephen for addressing my queries , and it is helpful.
One more follow up question on the same , Can DPDK HQOS be customized
based on Use case ?
For example: Hqos config for one of the use cases , *One Port , One
Subport , 16 Pipes & Each Pipe with only one TC*.
16 pipe config was allowed but changing the 13TCs
to 1TC is not allowed per Pipe.
Can I still use 13 TCs but use the QueueSize as 0, Can that impact
performance ?
Thanks
Farooq.J
On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 7:48 PM Stephen Hemminger <
stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:55:07 +0530
> farooq basha <farooq.juturu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello DevTeam,
> >
> > I am planning to use DPDK HQOS for Traffic shaping with a
> > run-to-completion Model. While I was reading the dpdk-qos document, I
> came
> > across the following statement.
> >
> > "*Running enqueue and dequeue operations for the same output port from
> > different cores is likely to cause significant impact on scheduler’s
> > performance and it is therefore not recommended"*
> >
> > Let's take an example, Port1 & Port2 have 4 Rx queues and each Queue
> > mapped to a different CPU. Traffic coming on port1 gets forwarded to
> port2
> > . With the above limitation application needs to take a lock before doing
> > rte_sched_port_enqueue & dequeue operation. Performance is limited to
> only
> > 1 CPU even though Traffic is coming on 4 Different CPUs.
> >
> > Correct me if my understanding is Wrong?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Basha
>
> The HQOS code is not thread safe so yes you need a lock.
> The traffic scheduling (QOS) needs to be at last stage of the pipeline just
> before mbufs are passed to the device.
>
> The issue is that QOS is single threaded, so lock is required.
>
> The statement is misleading, the real overhead is the lock; the secondary
> overhead is the cache miss that will happen if processing on different
> cores.
> But if you are doing that you are going to cut performance a lot from cache
> misses.
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2845 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-22 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-28 11:25 farooq basha
2025-05-21 14:18 ` Stephen Hemminger
2025-05-22 2:45 ` farooq basha [this message]
2025-05-22 15:21 ` Stephen Hemminger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+xuiv0gKOp=Ukd=Nd-b=CV3YvA8P+HpR3PiH4h+9Dus9-vK1g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=farooq.juturu@gmail.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).