Re: Netvsc vs Failsafe Performance

[Nandini Rangaswamy <nandini.rangaswamy@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2977 bytes --]

Hi Stephen/Long,
dpdk_netvsc_port_configure:1873 Configure port eth2/2. I am testing using
TCP traffic (iperf3 tool) generated between pair of client and servers with
DPDK app forward traffic between client and servers.
These are the config being passed for configuring netvsc:
lsc_intr=1
rxq/txq=2/2,
rss is enabled with rss_hf=0x0000000000000c30
tx_ol=0x00000000000006
rx_ol=0x00000000080007

Rsskey len is 64.
struct rte_eth_conf conf = {
.intr_conf = {
.lsc = !dpdk.lsc_intr_disable && !dpdk_if->lsc_intr_disable &&
!!(dev->data->dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC),
},
.rxmode = {
.mq_mode = RTE_ETH_MQ_RX_RSS,
.offloads = RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_STRIP | RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |
RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH | RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM,
},
.rx_adv_conf.rss_conf = {
.rss_hf = RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV4_UDP | RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV4_TCP |
RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV6_TCP,
.rss_key = conf_rss_key,
.rss_key_len = rss_key_len,
},
.txmode = {
.offloads = RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM,
},

Regards,
Nandini

On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:03 PM Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
wrote:

> 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.
>

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6812 bytes --]