From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ua0-f196.google.com (mail-ua0-f196.google.com [209.85.217.196]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2BA10D38 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 13:48:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ua0-f196.google.com with SMTP id y22so5416569uay.0 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:48:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SOFvydXOJoKH4T5YM+d+ZOTgV+nRiXMFdYGTJrgzHw4=; b=K1sWisFx37AdWHshydEo382h0WliHyjv+Y6EhT1p1oIxRmkYw/5mdCzLBxmAtmZFTN DB6ZWvKGu9zg5i1U7vxJC+ax9Ibok5v3Wfk0DBd6Wm18HthxqtaU9pvrLKu8WP2xfoSm xIITXuh6HuvOFjhd9cHAR0ExL6mQOAefjAStBloXslNwkKIGH1yAdtXI/TDOOol0x0L3 zdZXmO/eMKxBG4Na54EhE442+/2d1B4yFHTGVAh8EwEQ+CFEPLyq9eEWOl/Vvjyyvios F2T0l+uPWP7LKqt4U6JC4/J+GGVL4lvDOQtE5/LDQm9xmbAl4tLE+DdK51Il+IRrNJZG OxfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SOFvydXOJoKH4T5YM+d+ZOTgV+nRiXMFdYGTJrgzHw4=; b=H77zlwb+ts2pjHPu/40JnmhR3/DENNYmwaroLsyVkMPudWGundb5Ak4AfbxowkrCYV wf3sjMAh9jJn+o8YPS1CpdWFhzJRdv2ZjtNFrVVZJ9KNIZjgvQMmzb16Nf04SNqNu43N LjpRzqWXMJPLlPBf9tvpafRtnRK7cehmIpGIn9Bp2ZmTSoACgeVdYryRoBIda/ouU2qG LnD2Somw0r0hjf34xzlAru2sI6zzG3LFtm+Qi0wROBJyUyIULUgOfW5uuDO3s5p1/ByV YUeoIFwtagXDitSyVEMCsCI2tCkMOGw93ux5rdoWkdyL1sKJgXVjl6LFNgwr+wxSvuR/ jsyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJBz/Umz6GiFomwtUBBrMx3wuyJtKz8lOUIT20Q4ZCJMBZ8gyxh7qQQqkgGa+xBZg== X-Received: by 10.159.41.2 with SMTP id t2mr5890417uat.5.1482410932553; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:48:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ua0-f169.google.com (mail-ua0-f169.google.com. [209.85.217.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s15sm8266499vkb.25.2016.12.22.04.48.51 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ua0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 88so78603907uaq.3 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:48:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.176.1.3 with SMTP id 3mr7441874uak.170.1482410930948; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:48:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.159.33.147 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Dec 2016 04:48:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20161222111528.GA11104@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20161222111528.GA11104@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Royce Niu Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:48:50 +0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Bruce Richardson Cc: Royce Niu , 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: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 12:48:53 -0000 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! 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