From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf0-f42.google.com (mail-lf0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7277C8E8D for ; Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:18:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lf0-f42.google.com with SMTP id c192so18358074lfe.2 for ; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:18:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XNXWhLvc11ulKHs3ImhnFQ9pCYl0CwnnL/+FhopOkTw=; b=UjkBdrXztlKgrnEbmPRsyR7QdIOknl/ef/cAIbd4jsKgJb3tqLD71MFhnCHY6lxdft 7HoucjIoCxn5yAEqcCqjEKEaMFRuZVJzJJX9wPiU7a3e+C7iq8aN4jWPLAVPd8dH4DD2 p7pdZbLO6ZEMa/jVo+RnerVCOhsa0Btu2/Y90AKiUT58A+glZLszetZKA/XYDmi4wDBg 8wDy3/cwTHWVkJdPQDisOo+V1zMfTrUDlR2hGSFrTCb3do8zhAqP5Iqzjp9Jv35WpaIc GMTYw5GqIh1adEmRayL93Q5qSVG3QynFkcKZQ0fYPu7jITDsCEBO2Vpy2ixrW29zqKQm dqSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XNXWhLvc11ulKHs3ImhnFQ9pCYl0CwnnL/+FhopOkTw=; b=btIvmHrCFTzCMuAxC7YWg7TMBF3eJkWZyImsw98lRTfGxHskc7ye8bRWDmxLSeTbbc CxiOSclzNtcbJ5eXGfkWhaOHhOciYc5SMNzZ8byHA5AZw+sSjTjNWcfLYj46kq1VGw2W vh32kibW73gHlgNIXBJAAXmF73b37ocpxHrrc2GOTjNzbBPQcwmzkvhRw8aJgu1Ue3Ad tvUDahRKE0ctKCnJ5yeu/zMB+6qcBKqtzqnRB9BxEbEYm4RG1m5t75+actj3EQicylh6 WUBZWIBEuqhzivUfJqHBuRTD1VgQY6tZNTejz+IowI4dbUnXZWwEqDyjBBU9MnX8/bQZ hEEA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmqSWM+ChEYnNFZuiMLBw6g4G9JyxXqU7EB+Zvbk4+OaCG0rFvclCCvwkgsxwu85F0KCFWw0oeiGECXWJmIJAMFpNDOfw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.18.231 with SMTP id 100mr14713409lfs.25.1453346322180; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:18:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.173.1 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:18:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56A03376.2030903@intel.com> References: <56A03376.2030903@intel.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 19:18:42 -0800 Message-ID: From: Clarylin L To: "Tan, Jianfeng" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] L3 Forwarding performance of DPDK on virtio X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 03:18:42 -0000 Sorry. It's L2 forwarding. I used testpmd with forwarding mode, like testpmd --pci-blacklist 0000:00:05.0 -c f -n 4 -- --portmask 3 -i --total-num-mbufs=20000 --nb-cores=3 --mbcache=512 --burst=512 --forward-mode=mac --eth-peer=0,90:e2:ba:9f:95:94 --eth-peer=1,90:e2:ba:9f:95:95 On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Tan, Jianfeng wrote: > > Hello! > > > On 1/21/2016 7:51 AM, Clarylin L wrote: > >> I am running dpdk within a virtual guest as a L3 forwarder. >> >> >> The VM has two ports connecting to two linux bridges (in turn connecting >> two physical ports). DPDK is used to forward between these two ports (one >> port connected to traffic generator and the other connected to sink). I >> used iperf to test the throughput. >> >> >> If the VM/DPDK is running on passthrough, it can achieve around 10G >> end-to-end (from traffic generator to sink) throughput. However if the >> VM/DPDK is running on virtio (virtio-net-pmd), it achieves just 150M >> throughput, which is a huge degrade. >> >> >> On the virtio, I also measured the throughput between the traffic >> generator >> and its connected port on VM, as well as throughput between the sink and >> it's VM port. Both legs show around 7.5G throughput. So I guess forwarding >> within the VM (from one port to the other) would be a big killer of the >> performance. >> >> >> Any suggestion on how I can root cause the poor performance issue, or any >> idea on performance tuning techniques for virtio? thanks a lot! >> > > The L3 forwarder, you mentioned, is the l3fwd example in DPDK? If so, I > doubt it can work well with virtio, see another thread "Add API to get > packet type info". > > Thanks, > Jianfeng >