From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f194.google.com (mail-ua0-f194.google.com [209.85.217.194]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744ED10C8F for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:18:15 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ua0-f194.google.com with SMTP id i68so2391910uad.1 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:18:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f4uLdYZ9mv/FGpBrXRK5cIiQ65AJ7yekpIpaqD00DD0=; b=q8EoNG75vbb33cinLue98StPymlD08SIXbCE5IeWMGuJU71yIk27bEt7KQcti67y5A SrrZ3aRgEvbpMOnqgNPd+PomDdhay9IOvILJaSykP7DS64msBQb6z6RcwgNmD1lWIp6U 6UlkzK7R5duUcJ0ZtO5uQHOtcKDk/GC+T1IN6T7YTSenRCLoNIAOGGFwiXhX8TLVPSV4 T++Yvpj+I9BC5Kzf6owgnWhmtBdrCZL88A1EPAHrPdHHSimqyScUzwyQkvp+Ssg71Kkd enlXCMzB7Ku7p9Wqh5ftgVVvSrAsn3f8Za0Q+nTOKKLmibyuZFOGqz90QOtDLGjCHkvM Ytgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=f4uLdYZ9mv/FGpBrXRK5cIiQ65AJ7yekpIpaqD00DD0=; b=NiXgw1Cx19gEqBYMZrxC7lcKJzSotGQUgDS8nSPBCLIfe93lFGDXMfeMmxhPK+1eXw qLN2BfgzfRKYwbeMzeXPaFXMonGcb31kFBEpltws+bj/WQTZI+HwGHa1RWSI7YArIIvE KHFJ2IO9vD4Lybnkau4wt9rjWWTGP2O/rKQnRF8CrSHEdlLStMMqhN9AflmsYKvkYRsg 2gIvFb/xPp1X8JRhG4lL+AjcwjkQiheqldAmfEuMQCwTrFo7O6gxnUHncr0DZx5nRDTO 0ixP9HsNTvPJ04p/BPYvW4I/Cp+hCOBPdaRg39HjipQmrnlHaCVWP1XYX5VRugUyh/l5 yzTQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL/utK35yV8dHqPIloL4Dd6y/qZsEcwbww5kLsqHpDpCdWNOm7Wp54HxZk4snD54A== X-Received: by 10.159.54.135 with SMTP id p7mr3554371uap.48.1482337094479; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:18:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-f171.google.com (mail-ua0-f171.google.com. [209.85.217.171]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 32sm1610475uap.16.2016.12.21.08.18.12 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:18:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 2so82412912uax.2 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:18:12 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.176.85.219 with SMTP id w27mr3473703uaa.1.1482337092579; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:18:12 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.33.147 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:18:12 -0800 (PST) From: Royce Niu Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 00:18:12 +0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-dev] Why IP_PIPELINE is faster than L2FWD 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:18:15 -0000 Hi all, I tested default L2FWD and IP_PIPELINE (pass-through). The throughput of IP_PIPELINE is higher immensely. There are only two virtual NICs in KVM. The experiment is just moving packet from vNIC0 to vNIC1. I think the function is so simple. Why L2FWD is much slower? How can I improve L2FWD, to make L2FWD faster? Thanks! -- Regards, Royce