From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B56458F9 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F99540299; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f45.google.com (mail-ot1-f45.google.com [209.85.210.45]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCF94028A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-70f670eb827so90736a34.0 for ; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:03:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1725408233; x=1726013033; darn=dpdk.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CpPJW2M3+RZR1syD2KVSSvFBEBcpBxLcMTrrmz6Ffi0=; b=cDsCpCkhjuNjYyqWSqPe9iChzgx9bXDcAxa46s/8hq4I/LzflwremoN9jJ5t5nire9 EaRpmtinTKZoFYeZkR6SXPZ949S5+g5XmJsabvfaTdM3aq3u7gfcAF5lqNfDjrdLikJc HfX8pAWamlvJ+mClYnVzr6btSzQoB0UIhi40ajU54Zl+GJ6kdBrh5oG+oJMJGm2PtrBZ 20cebxMNJe71BIo0rjHZhSmXJsewBeG/leih7TtLx1RsUwsgzjohD2TOio/RSnUjiAMj gDX5NrzkIw/BnaT5RCFmRwyeytOGZjmbE7Vm1eXpU+UrxAziwWj78jTKSXjWoMl/EAID Ei3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725408233; x=1726013033; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CpPJW2M3+RZR1syD2KVSSvFBEBcpBxLcMTrrmz6Ffi0=; b=RyDhQ0XgzNpiSLbFnmhtoOlw9jIFbSoROreUyD9rjceXq70x5UNKo9EIWjkk0pIvu7 Hqau0fMdI9j4Bd04Q0G/cSSgUmctxq7nZU4oojIlEoeov8nVr8TQOgqc6MBTeYnrXV59 ipyT8Ajtp7TkNg9s/nGE2eE/zQ/v7Jv/kfrNu07TPBRNpFdc3vYQ05WwichpxXK3l5ED JuswDgsnYMkZuME8WXTy+4oOOxhduYFFp5PhDnHkZvQ1RbHi81Rq9GuoCFoxHwCW29Rq G7t4mL8wQmqAO6y5QkluqiBWT3gE0xCcaDL3Rvc603dMBxHRZnwFYirf60mpotJ8jcP0 8qyw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX//tP5sxjJXiO5pzXWAkz8GBukz9IiWJd9fwvnOe9CDKjCV3maJm6R4UU0qk5UQ4kftyiQLg==@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzZrH/1VDy/imyGBFhngUxg5qjBs4n/77IML+SeNBYJKyzMVP3Z gx4FzyJ7h3Lj0EviiqiYLsFqaPQUbEb52YuVIjQkTg0o/c82galLEhN3FymfPzQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGZxNtJyPeBo3c8fY8XaPO9kSBWl4Bo1ugXiL6fjrD2dWY20Ke5FZiUurrKJ3xv7pPyFrzVhA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:25d6:b0:703:6f95:98e9 with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-710b65ccba6mr116207a34.10.1725408233648; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-96-226.wavecable.com. [204.195.96.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 46e09a7af769-70f67142890sm2658848a34.12.2024.09.03.17.03.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:03:50 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Nandini Rangaswamy Cc: Long Li , users@dpdk.org Subject: Re: Netvsc vs Failsafe Performance Message-ID: <20240903170350.7e663864@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:43:28 -0700 Nandini Rangaswamy 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.