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 2CB05A04B1; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:15:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642565A8C; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:15:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (mail-io1-f65.google.com [209.85.166.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75FEE5A51 for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 08:15:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id u19so795239ion.3 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 23:15:05 -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=tdW9Jqt+sVrekHWYn9Xbn5kIgINRR50hucKED0FyfdU=; b=LE16EPpViKlF0vA+niQD60AcPe+meJzV9ODxY79qZM6m0ylaqybKOmgamZvStS77ro CM5LGwXF654l7J0W3Rlkb6sJy8cRR5vAdHeIlzEyzoYG5siZLcIXwUYELkmext/TL+Zn x8QfaAzgazgTTVMxPwYlH+x5HX939DCh6ygXsc8+6lvmFMr1ieLMU+hBKY9+TWS23c5s aOKZoanpKNT33HKbt4TbGc/V4vGFDwpJPRpZm/ZhuoJK7S6nCkFzyclUdajadcAOfzgz Yx9CUDMCtBrUHpuZ1CK2eNDsamva/mGmVGGeJi2kKB6wzI5Ly1u3HxTSfBlMznGBiDwE 6Qow== 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=tdW9Jqt+sVrekHWYn9Xbn5kIgINRR50hucKED0FyfdU=; b=QqbAuPQKkpbJBuIz+bp+C4LTuMCmaKv1QZJbx9SlXFX5mHV6KZa+Zaq+9emOTjiclh IuP5e4p5CKKXpmwlUMlLYVCh4NiDxXvZekMMXrdS8nfngdLanCyVk1c5w5dqUJ06dfVZ ekOVfUW9UqC7y3eadBVJWFQzqsmXv2x89XKQAFLln9TDCdhQ3efCWVF2xwbSycpyMKho S6Ya3GcLMN+9rIym4iUhrG0+RMZGteMWI9hQOtCn7el2+57+y/NWBdEbW8UEXApyudSw sMLO5JZfMtIA5MGO4VRsl2nlkmfk6JVaBmZg6JHa8X4GOyG9gCqcqVGz/ybeAinCWBYI onOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533RC1L2mn3o82jOE8llP4/DG+aLGbLZ1O5uIJMwkx6Xw8YBb9uS SomWqCNFDJuFGEsq4YSe56GZzduerNRGwDMQJ2E= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyuirOnlqrYhu0pTZU618dwLpuaLDzOuvBo4sO4zZzFTSLHcgMFWbqd29WyYoecFqjTwpP5MFeStmwWmpUwnIg= X-Received: by 2002:a02:7:: with SMTP id 7mr1025681jaa.112.1604560503859; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 23:15:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201104072810.105498-1-leyi.rong@intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jerin Jacob Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:44:47 +0530 Message-ID: To: "Rong, Leyi" Cc: David Marchand , "Zhang, Qi Z" , dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: enable multiple Tx queues on a lcore 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" On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:34 PM Rong, Leyi wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Marchand > > Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:43 PM > > To: Rong, Leyi > > Cc: Zhang, Qi Z ; dev > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: enable multiple Tx queues on a lcore > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:34 AM Rong, Leyi wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: David Marchand > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 4:14 PM > > > > To: Rong, Leyi > > > > Cc: Zhang, Qi Z ; dev > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: enable multiple Tx queues on a > > > > lcore > > > > > > > > If I count well, this is the v3 of the patch. > > > > Please version your patches. > > > > > > The previous versions are set to superseded. As nothing changes with > > > content on those versions, can start from this version? > > > > The commitlog changes even if the code itself did not change, so this is a > > different patch. > > Different patches mean different versions. > > This shows that some work happened since the v1 submission. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > As there always has thoughput limit for per queue, on some performance > > > test case by using l3fwd, the result will limited by the per queue > > > thoughput limit. With multiple Tx queue enabled, the per queue thoughput > > limit can be eliminated if the CPU core is not the bottleneck. > > > > Ah interesting. > > Which nic has such limitations? > > How much of an improvement can be expected from this? > > > > > > -- > > David Marchand > > The initial found was on XXV710 25Gb NIC, but suppose such issue can happen on more NICs > as the high-end CPU per core boundary is higher than many NICs(except 100Gb and above) per queue performance boundary. > The improvement can be about 1.8X with that case@1t2q. As far as I understand, the Current l3fwd Tx queue creation is like this: If the app has N cores and M ports then l3fwd creates, N x M Tx queues in total, What will be new values based on this patch? Does this patch has any regression in case the NIC queues able to cope up with the throughput limit from CPU. > > Leyi >