From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2F6A059B for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:07:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6F41C2BC; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:07:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-io1-f49.google.com (mail-io1-f49.google.com [209.85.166.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB281C1AF for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 09:07:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io1-f49.google.com with SMTP id f19so913334iog.5 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:07:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=roTocg1aXpMHt6XYWw15sJ/eem7+oqW9I8Wm/TXSndM=; b=N1z1I+MUjikBD0Mr6ZlQib0tkIM7X9vRUyZb3qmE4BFexoVJhgc/EXvbMF7wZbS3B1 GyYLROfkkc7zbO4BNfxOmPh70ozdIS2LlPtMHI+5mUDibC8odzq3x+wohBWkjR+5MJNQ VetKT98KSB8B6yrz2mReIybR2PJYyUgEd+Qio/d2h6O2eLjrbRN1fh8jevSDfC/iu0uO gTIfvTwblhzjs+ds3FXiccm7Ts6ooPBu7vBj4BI8vNUMuKomkIaD0rg6HZETLOJLl43x 5YKO7ihHNzXVQ5OoarRj2tlCVCc4ICellbeNI0wF6ZQcLTmq9A8EoZr9mMhV0kEHld1T S9kg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=roTocg1aXpMHt6XYWw15sJ/eem7+oqW9I8Wm/TXSndM=; b=JHtY3i9adjFPobceaqihcWWo9M7L/O43LvCFc2aZ0qTB+5GNoLdkc5TUYRPj7kjyrs xVziBi5wno5oDpybVmThxc3J57zLOxv4j6QqOy8erpO4f0A7peHDvypv+1yH6ysJYiBZ MOF0OOlfZoDrqn1yBdnbsTVD8QdpHfAnr/8JcRbeI9Ubc392P3T9ScBQ38oMr/U1BabP Di/DG7m6BV9JW5uTdc19CHst1DdUx8KPumrtXSqj19JuTnxHgJCgSo7UW7/e2qH5TZMl 0TEG+xgku9fer+beoWJUSulXw+C5EG3IYO9+TABSdGPehMtce6mUSeIboAori1jDfeUa vKig== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYzscg0rVV/weQFn79EMXZkPmPh9AwS8ClHTUmdAtIRtOBKHDYI 9Jfs4rbL5zl+oyNqmL98ttxdBe/U8sxU4sjAOtekKRDGEuA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLgDA3+YH3Ut6x/Nd/MmS4jIzU6aruKfmC4FXX6gdMVeok3110GVN6kCWYTmH+A5lyHKJK1dnZ3deJK8yWxu7o= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2219:: with SMTP id n25mr3126072ion.151.1586502448769; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:07:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: waqas ahmed Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 12:07:17 +0500 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] Bit rate problem of pipe traffic classes in DPDK19.11 QOS app X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" G'day, we are working with dpdk19.11 qos application and tries to understand its working at pipe level. it is configured with 4096 pipes under subport 0 and currently we are using only one pipe0. pipe is given with 13 traffic classes (tc) and each of tc is configured with pipe profile as given below. we are putting single RTP stream into each of tc one by one to see its guaranteed bit rate specified. if we use queue = tc# than bit rate of respective traffic class doesn't match, but if we put any of tc packets into queue 0 of pipe than each of tc bit rate guarantees to its upper limit. can any one explain this behavior? how can we get exact bit rate of tc by forwarding pkts to its own queue? ; Pipe configuration [pipe profile 0] tb rate = 1750000 ; 1750000 X 8 = 14 mbits/sec tb size = 1000000 ; Bytes tc 0 rate = 1750000 ; 14 tc 1 rate = 1625000 ; 13 tc 2 rate = 1500000 ; 12 tc 3 rate = 1375000 ; 11 tc 4 rate = 1125000 ; 9 tc 5 rate = 1000000 ; 8 tc 6 rate = 875000 ; 7 tc 7 rate = 750000 ; 6 tc 8 rate = 625000 ; 5 tc 9 rate = 500000 ; 4 tc 10 rate = 375000 ; 3 tc 11 rate = 250000 ; 2 tc 12 rate = 125000 ; (125000 X 8 = 1000000) 1 mbits/sec Regards