From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f176.google.com (mail-ua0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B762B10DCC for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 02:41:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ua0-f176.google.com with SMTP id y22so65006741uay.0 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:41:37 -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=CC4w1NNmbXSirzxoN6XPpBv5Vo12viMCfKYEXtpfx14=; b=JJ42oFPO+VAR0xyas5DKDMSgqJG0OIIW2TyRnSak9T++/bDeHQUXXw8t73KfBP9Aav r9j0jsNtKb0y/mYBiWerVsZzmks9spkSUAzT9XVBVzgUKUfLqiXivC1TYGXcxgGwtNah XipuE3PMPP5XNiFBY1vgnYigizX9veQB1y0Sk2qwbKq5mKUuPsB/RXycU18RO9Mqz3Q8 K93TRrSbV7LUi0OUUeNj+guRpEJlT+zh+fTN8WGgD5SRik6JWCvGS26TfYXS1ZtrYtCe 3foGS5Cjig948wPRFuHfLsJ9rvljG/rfN56p+c3cA+kjKU2VpWmcm7n6Wwk24YEdAeTC U3Ew== 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=CC4w1NNmbXSirzxoN6XPpBv5Vo12viMCfKYEXtpfx14=; b=hYh+RzGxCDtKk961DvmD1tZ/zkpCJQEuT8Wdj7bcYmyOoPlVGreyAQ11D9zDaTJ5Ma /NUCOQkOcQIXoXAL+AxF+ijGzLH4mAQufhSeJDp343gWD7fo3EgIwABURIrno13q70gX /NUJCTGCWK9Jq2CfSLXk1Fpa/nTQZ3diZELtNfvMMioVllljnK68bnhOAEcNgNKu8WSz 9p+ldJcN5A0/CpAyh2wjHy48FKnoT6PRsLZlWGrMS2VW1BVfU6rAl0lkUOQTe+Bz9x/K FpWWUdxndSUbzIiXpykXVgHRRmFye3JlioqJ0/mylrNY3x7uFr9mpzxKXmx/OMYvtfG5 PQfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJRroZAIstWUq9rAjxLUpPgz6F7zLoD9s8MWitSMZe09rz7dNM6CO2sGz8MggddoQ== X-Received: by 10.176.2.208 with SMTP id 74mr7691549uah.41.1482457296853; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-f174.google.com (mail-ua0-f174.google.com. [209.85.217.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 111sm8821796uar.4.2016.12.22.17.41.35 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:41:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 88so95544350uaq.3 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:41:35 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.159.36.118 with SMTP id 109mr9844526uaq.124.1482457295057; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:41:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20161222111528.GA11104@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20161222132542.GA44940@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E3B4B78B6@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <82F45D86ADE5454A95A89742C8D1410E3B4B78B6@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Royce Niu Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 01:41:24 +0000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: "Richardson, Bruce" , Royce Niu , "Xu, Qian Q" Cc: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 01:41:38 -0000 Yes. One core is assigned. On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 at 9:34 AM, Xu, Qian Q wrote: > As far as I know, L2FWD only uses 1 core for all RX/TX, for all queues, > but for ip_pipeline, you may use more cores. > > A simple question, are you using 1core in ip_pipeline or l3fwd test? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Royce Niu > > > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 9:36 PM > > > To: Richardson, Bruce > > > Cc: Royce Niu ; dev@dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian > > > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why IP_PIPELINE is faster than L2FWD > > > > > > Dear Bruce, > > > > > > Thanks for your kind explanation. > > > > > > I will try to follow your suggestion and see the source code. > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Bruce Richardson < > > > bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 08:48:50PM +0800, Royce Niu wrote: > > > > > But, actually, L3FWD of IP_PIPELINE is also faster than stock L2FWD, > > > > which > > > > > also modifies mac addr. How can explain this? > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I want to know why IP_PIPELINE is much faster and I can > > > > > learn from IP_PIPELINE and make our own program. > > > > > > > > > > But, the documentation of that is not detailed enough. if it is > > > > > possible, could you tell me where is the key to boost? Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > Adding Cristian as IP Pipeline maintainer. > > > > > > > > A lot of tuning work went into IP Pipeline and the table and port > > > > libraries it uses, so I'm not sure that there is just one or two key > > > > changes which give it such good performance. L2 forward just hasn't > > > > had the same level of tuning and, while performing well, is also > > > > simplified to make it understandable as an example. Contrast the code > > > > in l2fwd against equivalent vector code in l3fwd-lpm* files e.g. > > > l3fwd_lpm_sse.h. > > > > The latter is very high performing, the former is more readable. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Bruce Richardson < > > > > > bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:18:12AM +0800, Royce Niu wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is IP_PIPELINE in passthrough mode modifying the packets? L2FWD > > > > > > swaps the mac addresses on each packet as it processes them, which > > > > > > can slow > > > > it > > > > > > down. L2FWD is also more an example of how the APIs work than > > > > > > anything else. For fastest possible port-to-port forwarding, > > > > > > testpmd should give the highest performance. > > > > > > > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Royce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Royce > >