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 275E3458FB for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:22:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DB640299; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:22:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f175.google.com (mail-lj1-f175.google.com [209.85.208.175]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E15644028A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 02:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f175.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f43de7ad5eso74526551fa.1 for ; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:22:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; t=1725409320; x=1726014120; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pOyCHapeejF9YxWiEf5fSRI/6jcYmUIKDVqQEWFlcv8=; b=EGm5Y9XhVZxSgRtWuAHZ01srP/W8E127XN+lwwWsexdy22OHirdtILX/RtlazbA5ne uYpHMjsaAPVPfZjsHN5gq0EPKt50bUmSy7Leg2oilQfCXt5pf+OVHAp+ZfXO2zXz4Mej i+2NJU8O+DcpRfr1bt0/RQCMJDTTMym/gQbVQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725409320; x=1726014120; 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=pOyCHapeejF9YxWiEf5fSRI/6jcYmUIKDVqQEWFlcv8=; b=RhXNS2QCDL/3PyaIIAw7gAsv7zrbb5KwPUTOiELesJqETezJnvxh0UfKIA3rPY8+0s nAcMjRaQT3/uXcWmtOCQWEzQCtEJ7ZDAd5YNl/wdMcXjxMXM4W6KRAj5+WnQMb4XOKUz 2oeC1aQ/6hY4tg0aNbrAu6EvdTxpOvaHbuYChqrKyxirC+ryzZZWRK96uajx6vvYYjKK G0+9ryunx61HzAS4QMy69HfU2HiZWsV0rYxM7Fw0rebVfN62PlVHf4exx8+aDxo8AJ1s 83sZOVSvnwqJdq/Ei6eInvxlaY9pI4QSWg5RCS6FcAIYzpXVdRRS2FQW09+AwCu/zs50 tFhg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUmPGAYqps/yfBMYOD0GYjngqhuEUxDdEQbo8FO407YslGUPIKEn5CHJGQU0hCEA/uESb+VXQ==@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxCEfulqA6XYROtkwzOmADqARVXC+zVASNn1qomt4+nleVy1nEO Lz/pUlbR5tFATxLTqYSuirNquvyrCdcRXVwdlvfQChBeI2WNUkcf6gdcuI+H+YereJQHqlGXblm MGP9JVz9f1MoIj8QhrvtDUWAXSoTMYPb6Pbh6P0NG+PSMo7wGz1cu4fcrSY2OdXH+/8PGBW/pYb MSWZcwdEU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHmaOPqZ/mdmLf3EEybB0RTqMTr3zBnghd5JA4Y5y1kWcJVpn/T3jwiqe80GjgbtAe30MjUniFmPfsMxcqY2Ec= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:198e:b0:2ee:7a3a:9969 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f6265504aamr104415961fa.5.1725409319832; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 17:21:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240903170350.7e663864@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20240903170350.7e663864@hermes.local> From: Nandini Rangaswamy Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 17:21:48 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Netvsc vs Failsafe Performance To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Long Li , users@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000099febf06214029a2" 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 --00000000000099febf06214029a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=3D1 rxq/txq=3D2/2, rss is enabled with rss_hf=3D0x0000000000000c30 tx_ol=3D0x00000000000006 rx_ol=3D0x00000000080007 Rsskey len is 64. struct rte_eth_conf conf =3D { .intr_conf =3D { .lsc =3D !dpdk.lsc_intr_disable && !dpdk_if->lsc_intr_disable && !!(dev->data->dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC), }, .rxmode =3D { .mq_mode =3D RTE_ETH_MQ_RX_RSS, .offloads =3D 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 =3D { .rss_hf =3D RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV4_UDP | RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV4_TCP | RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV6_TCP, .rss_key =3D conf_rss_key, .rss_key_len =3D rss_key_len, }, .txmode =3D { .offloads =3D RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM, }, Regards, Nandini On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 5:03=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > 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 f= or > > some exception path tests, about 22% performance gain in seen. > > I ran some tests locally with my dpdk app integrated with netvsc PMD an= d > > 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. > --=20 This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted= =20 with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for=20 the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain= =20 information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy= =20 laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are=20 not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the=20 e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use,=20 copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of= =20 this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error,= =20 please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and= =20 destroy any printed copy of it. --00000000000099febf06214029a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=C2=A0Stephen/Long,
dpdk_netvsc_por= t_configure:1873 Configure port eth2/2. I am testing using TCP traffic (ipe= rf3 tool) generated between pair of client and servers with DPDK app forwar= d traffic between client and servers.
These are the config being = passed for configuring netvsc:
lsc_intr=3D1
rxq/txq=3D2= /2,=C2=A0
rss is enabled with rss_hf=3D0x0000000000000c30=C2=A0
tx_ol=3D0x00000000000006=C2=A0
rx_ol=3D0x00000000080007<= br>

Rsskey len is 64.
struct rte_et= h_conf conf =3D {
.intr_conf =3D {
.lsc =3D !dpdk.lsc_intr_disable && !dpdk_if->lsc_intr_disable &&
!!(dev<= span style=3D"color:rgb(119,119,119)">->data->= dev_flags & RTE_ETH_DEV_INTR_LSC),
},
.rxmode =3D {
.mq_mode =3D RT= E_ETH_MQ_RX_RSS,
= .offloads =3D RTE_E= TH_RX_OFFLOAD_VLAN_STRIP | RT= E_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM |=
RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_RSS_HASH | RTE_ETH_RX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM,
},
.rx_adv_conf.rss_conf =3D {
.rss_hf = =3D RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV4_UDP | RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV4_TCP |
 RTE_ETH_RSS_NONFRAG_IPV6_TCP,
.rss_key = =3D conf_rss_key,
.rss_key_len =3D rss_key_len,
},
.txmode =3D {
.offloads =3D RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_UDP_CKSUM | RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_IPV4_CKSUM,=
},<= /div>

Regards,
Nandini

On Tue= , Sep 3, 2024 at 5:03=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:4= 3:28 -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=C2=A0 tests, about 22% performance gain in seen. > I ran some tests locally with my dpdk app integrated with netvsc PMD a= nd
> 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 lik= e 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 whic= h
maybe different.

This ele= ctronic communication and the information and any files transmitted with it= , or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for the use o= f the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain informat= ion that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy laws, or= otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are not the in= tended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the= intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, copying, distrib= uting, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is st= rictly 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. --00000000000099febf06214029a2--