From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Nandini Rangaswamy <nandini.rangaswamy@broadcom.com>
Cc: Long Li <longli@microsoft.com>, users@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: Netvsc vs Failsafe Performance
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:03:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240903170350.7e663864@hermes.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAkQrK-quv_w+1KG=H3yDsiN9Xki9DigucZCy7q_RwMLmgCYyg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:43:28 -0700
Nandini Rangaswamy <nandini.rangaswamy@broadcom.com> wrote:
> Hi Stephen and Long,
> I was going through one of the netvsc patches
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-August/110559.html which mentioned
> that netvsc and failsafe give the same performance in VF path whereas for
> some exception path tests, about 22% performance gain in seen.
> I ran some tests locally with my dpdk app integrated with netvsc PMD and
> observed that netvsc does give nearly the same performance as failsafe in
> the VF path.
> Since the official document does not explicitly cite this, I would like to
> confirm if this holds good.
> Regards,
> Nandini
>
Shouldn't be. What settings are you using.
Both failsafe and netvsc just pass packets to VF if present.
There is even more locks to go through with failsafe.
Are you sure the test doesn't exercise something like checksumming which
maybe different.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-04 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-03 21:43 Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-04 0:03 ` Stephen Hemminger [this message]
2024-09-04 0:21 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-04 22:42 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-09-05 2:30 ` Long Li
2024-09-12 20:47 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-12 23:09 ` Stephen Hemminger
2024-09-13 17:56 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-13 21:27 ` Long Li
2024-09-13 21:29 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-16 22:58 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-17 21:56 ` Long Li
2024-09-19 16:45 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-12 22:02 ` Nandini Rangaswamy
2024-09-12 22:59 ` Stephen Hemminger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240903170350.7e663864@hermes.local \
--to=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=longli@microsoft.com \
--cc=nandini.rangaswamy@broadcom.com \
--cc=users@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).