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.