From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com (mail-vk0-f47.google.com [209.85.213.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A201D5A64 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:23:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by vkfw189 with SMTP id w189so106822647vkf.2 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:23:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=e/S2moL3HpJIffO0tWWO0WNRhNEDZHUhZL6vPvbHBVU=; b=GgkqKfRDNITssV484huzCW/EG+e/icKWmZMJ0NnbV23A6LRgR2/WWi/1ZnRIgBg66G v+Wus+/c+OZwmz3PY2e320U8e0kW75Zq5coaLRknrihqnyjYwN2OV4jiiv+0AQPqFG+t kefmrXwv0/STnECo75Opku5Y2X6Ya6Vtu3SpIJta7jmvtEocPYWspXmIqAKppQcQ8Xz/ TXDK11gGReEVEs+XJhjO1jk+OlDYXAiuMRPt8UHqDTsnYk5VEgzRO44Wi+Xv3Mz195Yb fOy92Z8VIjqrC6+uSN9gI6EX/At/hoeOhawsYk6HJAEjQQIjtFYXFZz0ZHKCknfHGiTU /gOw== X-Received: by 10.31.134.18 with SMTP id i18mr15677747vkd.16.1445890982065; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:23:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.181.17 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:22:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pappas Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:22:22 +0100 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-users] Inconsistent results for varying packet sizes X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:23:03 -0000 Hi everyone, we have done some basic testing with DPDK. We are testing the baseline forwarding performance (table lookup code has been commented out and we statically forward traffic among a 1-1 incoming to outgoing port assignment), but we get weird results (attached). For 256-byte packets the average latency is lower than for 128-byte packets, but for 1500-byte packets the latency is much higher than the previous two packet sizes. Could you please let us know if this is something expected, since it is counter-intuitive, or if we are having some obvious configuration mistake? Our configuration is as following: Best regards, Chris *Command* sudo ./build/l3fwd -c 0xffff -n 4 -- -p 0xfff -P --config="(0,0,1),(1,0,2),(2,0,3),(3,0,4),(4,0,8),(5,0,9),( 6,0,10),(7,0,11),(8,0,12),(9,0,13),(10,0,14),(11,0,15)" *Core assignment (one core per one port)* L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 1 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=1 portid=0 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 2 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=2 portid=1 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 3 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=3 portid=2 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 4 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=4 portid=3 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: lcore 5 has nothing to do L3FWD: lcore 6 has nothing to do L3FWD: lcore 7 has nothing to do L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 8 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=8 portid=4 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 9 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=9 portid=5 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 10 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=10 portid=6 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 11 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=11 portid=7 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 12 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=12 portid=8 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 13 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=13 portid=9 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 14 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=14 portid=10 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: entering main loop on lcore 15 L3FWD: -- lcoreid=15 portid=11 rxqueueid=0 L3FWD: lcore 0 has nothing to do