From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <users-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6CBA04C0
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:11:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2691BF0A;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:11:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-lj1-f169.google.com (mail-lj1-f169.google.com
[209.85.208.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CEBC1BE97;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 10:11:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-lj1-f169.google.com with SMTP id q2so1676892ljg.7;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:11:17 -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=xfXPCfEvc+1+a5e+ljDy66uTe1rLAbCNaZGmeGmzD0M=;
b=GbiWOjr7qYpXJyb3uyhuRWyjK/T+qwYDKfnRtY63tThQnPkePTk9dWnkD1M7vwjNLx
ekkXUmVXKLyG/ghr9A8AXsXTg5lzPjmaZBXq8Wm5mPXYcprDZyjFI6NakVq4U3qKehtC
tqYRV28V+KsnzLMIedB67NlttxClaDWoBq4XWOEDyWzN1DZ7ItK4mkp+UaRHhs6iVxmy
TLUMUBZZP4uJT6t8y5RzYzn2KINy21L33v5A4oJYxIyh9VmWbCc5z8bwQ8YyO/ktlUUY
MwSFHHsUC60zJDbCoWDSQ6Pa08I0ucnCe2fbi4CqAKhS2sd3hmFRk6QFk5PPpKwOpKF5
rY3Q==
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=xfXPCfEvc+1+a5e+ljDy66uTe1rLAbCNaZGmeGmzD0M=;
b=Ds2eSK28fPMHYm5TsqREAgbF3LNachFFQV+TdmJnrlsrXF3WM8UUB+Rwei+7q163va
McQTFYkory3oEOpLvV1LWDpphobY0ceQuGRaT62VD21+xMJGcYbh0gV05EbPWzM+bdaQ
IvjNhW9tOMlivTPq0TcPVnA7nPnV9fXZvaREyVSOk+e8Ywa09wpHqdWhqwM13jqcSuDC
y88Lp+6E8ldzuGiXZgT0U8nS+AktQaTvpJQUB6S4zIzhlhYgfWwyNIz5XmV6XHuWTl4X
WtIjJZpA5z9rgxSqayvAP81DdZpRR3z1dcxuvOltUcVWeMKlBSj6hKlLj/sEOMLwngdl
kCWw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUDNvKI0qMtgY+sUb5HjgCTO0MYEyPmEFSozgsnFC6PPfGpMva5
WPiBAssrgw4sm+f3fC5VBkz3I6b4Hewkpp+9MPQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqydvg68ngmv2Z5Flayby4YLUll4trxuDwAEOjFmHN/LkbLrUjSgleC0Ghh1rEML58i5IHvhz77VwekD4QYOzHA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:a410:: with SMTP id p16mr1825549ljn.46.1573636276839;
Wed, 13 Nov 2019 01:11:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+i0PGV9DxiwwyL-AXCuhMcndZ=11Yk+t6KOub-R7yYuaB1qzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+i0PGXsCscS9y8rKR2P8qfjHBunznv8SHX4=ESm0eCYrhP7ZA@mail.gmail.com>
<20191113083217.GC4841@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <20191113083217.GC4841@platinum>
From: Venumadhav Josyula <vjosyula@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 14:41:04 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+i0PGV3SfNVP0hb8nhMH693e-DUZTgxZeoxrO4wVzMurPv31Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org,
Venumadhav Josyula <vjosyula@parallelwireless.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-dev] time taken for allocation of mempool.
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/users>,
<mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/users>,
<mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "users" <users-bounces@dpdk.org>
Hi Oliver,
*> Could you give some more details about you use case? (hugepage size,
number of objects, object size, additional mempool flags, ...)*
Ours in telecom product, we support multiple rats. Let us take example of
4G case where we act as an gtpu proxy.
=C2=B7 Hugepage size :- 2 Mb
=C2=B7 *rte_mempool_create in param*
o { name=3D=E2=80=9Dgtpu-mem=E2=80=9D,
o n=3D1500000,
o elt_size=3D224,
o cache_size=3D0,
o private_data_size=3D0,
o mp_init=3DNULL,
o mp_init_arg=3DNULL,
o obj_init=3DNULL,
o obj_init_arg=3DNULL,
o socket_id=3Drte_socket_id(),
o flags=3DMEMPOOL_F_SP_PUT }
*> Did you manage to reproduce it in a small test example? We could do some
profiling to investigate.*
No I would love to try that ? Are there examples ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Venu
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 14:02, Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:
> Hi Venu,
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:42:07AM +0530, Venumadhav Josyula wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Few more points
> >
> > Operating system : Centos 7.6
> > Logging mechanism : syslog
> >
> > We have logged using syslog before the call and syslog after the call.
> >
> > Thanks & Regards
> > Venu
> >
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 10:37, Venumadhav Josyula <vjosyula@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi ,
> > > We are using 'rte_mempool_create' for allocation of flow memory. This
> has
> > > been there for a while. We just migrated to dpdk-18.11 from
> dpdk-17.05. Now
> > > here is problem statement
> > >
> > > Problem statement :
> > > In new dpdk ( 18.11 ), the 'rte_mempool_create' take approximately ~4=
.4
> > > sec for allocation compared to older dpdk (17.05). We have som 8-9
> mempools
> > > for our entire product. We do upfront allocation for all of them ( i.=
e.
> > > when dpdk application is coming up). Our application is run to
> completion
> > > model.
> > >
> > > Questions:-
> > > i) is that acceptable / has anybody seen such a thing ?
> > > ii) What has changed between two dpdk versions ( 18.11 v/s 17.05 ) fr=
om
> > > memory perspective ?
>
> Could you give some more details about you use case? (hugepage size, numb=
er
> of objects, object size, additional mempool flags, ...)
>
> Did you manage to reproduce it in a small test example? We could do some
> profiling to investigate.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
> Olivier
>