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 9712C458F4 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:43:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10023402BE; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:43:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-lj1-f195.google.com (mail-lj1-f195.google.com [209.85.208.195]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238204028A for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2024 23:43:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f195.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f4f2868783so59901811fa.2 for ; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:43:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; t=1725399820; x=1726004620; darn=dpdk.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xOtb53Cccm32QG2CCXNOfMOIoY/CXes2cMot5S+mTEw=; b=fj0NfJ8/Ogx+WZQaq1YInLZwPBzlxAun+MtHegRSgtBmY3LkaTk6eFovu252AI0mvc pbjQ3JJOG2T3jS0AShQD2YjWFCPYzJoK0ELpEOULSzZgnZ4FxulD7wKMiwUGmbv++XYB onmn1mZTA2H3IRRLbJSuPpW3XW89zOrYy66dc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1725399820; x=1726004620; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xOtb53Cccm32QG2CCXNOfMOIoY/CXes2cMot5S+mTEw=; b=SdLZ/hGmzR9GhHF8Nj/a5JYTvjsRqtBWtx4rRnQQJZG82U0KZJjXvvtvAAOD+i1MZy gCNExsJY+UU0f1pDlk1AadxL2kl6PVanuN1zqYO/rghNbZF2NL3qY6oDspDd94aC99iN Lzmbna2HNEi+C9S6T+TfE/Y6UBJbJiQZ0C/YDcDIQIPdWHhbZmd9DmVwGNniylnXnjzZ vZguqqwnQ1yk0UOFiFmWexa1etJv7twCO6iAtde/rdXAYIOLio8HWndraYQh23UmtN1m +yRgEG6k8zVGBdieJF7MKmVZJzLNjw7sQrZlmNv1rne3KaWvvZ0F69t7/qHd05QypFdd 1KEw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXuyAY46DDlogdKJ9tLhIGfi/arWmJTodKlnTEwrv5QygVaERNC5YzdyE0FAXhi8SnyCfweoQ==@dpdk.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxbnsUt4Aagfyob/MMq3hQK6uGVlITDUhvWAqLf0hpgw+LFitr/ WUXNxznu10bK382iJ3zTR6vm6ctTicQSGORYRhBH7S+Zf3WI/G5vHIxD3Yxgj8Z4RyuNHlv9mUW WcroxNquXoPpa4wZ1Jph5nN9rJeBvIRItL/9LsQOeXCQFCxubM6mwY20pQu0F4cU2+stind1/be vx5pwKado= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG0CTA2Din2k43KgOb4+vP2j14YZSuAl/rUoA2tODlz7+BLSzVX0YqW5ry1wf1RP0aVWjCfL1/Wz18CFAoeCSg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:1507:b0:2f5:104b:f2c with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2f61e0b27f4mr93269491fa.39.1725399820072; Tue, 03 Sep 2024 14:43:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Nandini Rangaswamy Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:43:28 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Netvsc vs Failsafe Performance To: Stephen Hemminger , Long Li , users@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005f1acb06213df3b9" 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 --0000000000005f1acb06213df3b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 -- 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. --0000000000005f1acb06213df3b9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=C2=A0Stephen and Long,
I was going through one of t= he netvsc patches=C2=A0https://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% performa= nce gain in seen.
I ran some tests locally=C2=A0with my dpdk app = integrated with netvsc PMD and observed that netvsc does give nearly the sa= me performance as failsafe in the VF path.
Since the official doc= ument does not explicitly=C2=A0cite this, I would like to confirm if this h= olds good.
Regards,
Nandini

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. --0000000000005f1acb06213df3b9--