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 84EC0A0093 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:30:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0280741156; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:30:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-yw1-f173.google.com (mail-yw1-f173.google.com [209.85.128.173]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B49410F9 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:30:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw1-f173.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-43ea87d0797so70555437b3.5 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 07:30:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=5fV5A9XAxP6gmpF8Y+2oZdrH3gzo2X2lDtirja3WqI0=; b=ierLVQzSapQk7A7ZrZ/J105kn4qElt2eY1lzAeqw7jIoicX2NPSB77BAWA1RCpXUQg JVyOIBSOqihcIFwd1r8Hoio32hS2Aq9yVLG3QQ/k5TWEYZon/ioB89lQvIhnJCopf21+ g5d8zkhV87tn9Vlzrp9qL4JgIgezgkwjp12r910XLaYTZ2O+L3oJSQp1GZGP5XKDESK/ pLpUZX3YTE5vC2OlnCsOxYNPxrnO40BBaNJLhRBD+XP4I+IHpPNwU00kGV9Q2u6JtQop 5P4+B8xkjz7oDVVAQcPzgn6BbjsNj2tEw+Yne6sgFb0KQPkkjMbmNCd2jTXk8f+4GMeE M2PA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=5fV5A9XAxP6gmpF8Y+2oZdrH3gzo2X2lDtirja3WqI0=; b=PPP4DEDtXO9PxpbNygUbbmh+QJJ3oRfpkJyoQq0qVDIfVQ0kAOxyF/wrbDqkg0guhv y5CyKg7mOL4JRbWVIvwq33u++E1pFUhbwhJZioMziA79uzzQBEH8FCQ8UoFTS+xlUnJH uDzEr3jMLnzXnmf+EkQL6rDeskKEaLAETx5tjcWfZ4Gen11P7SGpjSK4tmzyerL8ro4g s6z2MjuleDFYn8ltRn04QZq8HWOR+PXrPKaaKR3NKyw1W3f3MzkP6xs7Q7Ts0F5GAfu6 K/IxqLP7klnDB5yH/riGlXWhDIZbtfyAS32QPfmaVrD4+/c4wrCsBm2/Bw7L3eTO6fWz ZW/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2krmrqyUwc+cIB+wAKxtUsssM/LujM8V6C8d8zCNGG89LO4yAXQW hvFOvdPmNSKwcfnItZ1bJBl+0+F6SJEvAyHs/jN5IygrR8Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXt4zmpI9fKesitlYelBEGyRfzMFxzr0NJzJhtO0/eSJLsD8PhwV6nS49nLfNlLMZHSQYf75IJUJf/A/G5cPqfs= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ff45:0:b0:391:f64b:e3bb with SMTP id p66-20020a0dff45000000b00391f64be3bbmr1076180ywf.49.1671809422729; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 07:30:22 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20221218141402.52240242@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20221218141402.52240242@hermes.local> From: fwefew 4t4tg <7532yahoo@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:30:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Is there a way to instruct NIC/DPDK which RXQ to deliver a packet to not RSS? To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: "users@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c627f505f0807683" 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 --000000000000c627f505f0807683 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" >RSS should be implemented in hardware. So it shouldn't be causing added >latency. What device are you using. My error; aggregate performance is the same. H/W RSS is fine. >Packet direction to queue in HW is done with rte_flow (if your NIC supports it) >https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html Thank you! That was not on my radar for some reason. Much appreciated. On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:14 PM Stephen Hemminger < stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:41:13 -0500 > fwefew 4t4tg <7532yahoo@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am aware of RSS; I coded it and have gotten it to work between > machines. > > > > However, the elapsed time per packet increases from <100ns/packet RSS-OFF > > to 700-800ns RSS-ON in my test setup. > > > > In my scenario I have hardcoded routing between TXQs on client machines > and > > RXQs on the server machines. > > Packet direction to queue in HW is done with rte_flow (if your NIC > supports it) > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.html > > RSS should be implemented in hardware. So it shouldn't be causing added > latency. What device are you using. > --000000000000c627f505f0807683 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>RSS should be implemented in hardware. So it shouldn&#= 39;t be causing added
>latency. What device are you using.
My error; aggregate performance is the same. H/W RSS is fine.

&= gt;Packet direction to queue in HW is done with rte_flow (if your NIC suppo= rts it)
>https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_= guide/rte_flow.html
Thank you! That was not on my radar for some rea= son. Much appreciated.


On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 5:14 PM Stephen= Hemminger <stephen@networ= kplumber.org> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2022 16:41:13 -0500
fwefew 4t4tg <7= 532yahoo@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am aware of RSS; I coded it and have gotten it to work between machi= nes.
>
> However, the elapsed time per packet increases from <100ns/packet R= SS-OFF
> to 700-800ns RSS-ON in my test setup.
>
> In my scenario I have hardcoded routing between TXQs on client machine= s and
> RXQs on the server machines.

Packet direction to queue in HW is done with rte_flow (if your NIC supports= it)
https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.= html

RSS should be implemented in hardware. So it shouldn't be causing added=
latency. What device are you using.
--000000000000c627f505f0807683--