DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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).