On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 4:05 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com> wrote:

> On 11/22/2023 6:01 AM, kumaraparameshwaran rathinavel wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > The current GRO code uses an unoptimised version of flow lookup where
> > each flow in the table is iterated over during the flow matching
> > process. For a rte_gro_reassemble_burst in lightweight mode this would
> > not cause much of an impact. But with rte_gro_reassemble which is done
> > with a timeout interval, this causes higher CPU utilisation during
> > throughput tests. The proposal here is to use a Hash based flowtable
> > which could make use of the  rte_hash table implementation in DPDK.
> > There could be a hash table for each of the GRO types. The lookup
> > function and the key could be different for each one of the types. If
> > there is a consensus that this could have a better performance impact I
> > would work on an initial patch set. Please let me know your thoughts.
> >
>
>
> Hi Kumara,
>
> Your proposal looks reasonable to me, I think it worth to try.
> cc'ed techboard for more comment.
>
>> Thanks Ferruh - Sure I will get a initial patch set with TCP/IPv4 GRO
>> type.
>>
>
> Do you have any performance measurement with the existing code? To have
> it helps to evaluate impact of the change.
>
>> I did some testing sometime back and the observations were that on a
>> 10Gbps link, the throughput value with iperf testing
>> of unoptimised and optimised were almost the same, but the CPU
>> conservation was upto 30-35%. So any tests running in
>> parallel like imix kind of traffic would definitely have better results.
>> I will try to profile the two cases with some performance impacting
>> results.
>>
>