From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/2] performance utility in testpmd
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 11:54:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1946900.ocWSxO32dE@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1461192195-104070-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
2016-04-20 18:43, Zhihong Wang:
> This RFC patch proposes a general purpose forwarding engine in testpmd
> namely "portfwd", to enable performance analysis and tuning for poll mode
> drivers in vSwitching scenarios.
>
>
> Problem statement
> -----------------
>
> vSwitching is more I/O bound in a lot of cases since there are a lot of
> LLC/cross-core memory accesses.
>
> In order to reveal memory/cache behavior in real usage scenarios and enable
> efficient performance analysis and tuning for vSwitching, DPDK needs a
> sample application that supports traffic flow close to real deployment,
> e.g. multi-tenancy, service chaining.
>
> There is a vhost sample application currently to enable simple vSwitching
> scenarios, it comes with several limitations:
>
> 1) Traffic flow is too simple and not flexible
>
> 2) Switching based on MAC/VLAN only
>
> 3) Not enough performance metrics
>
>
> Proposed solution
> -----------------
>
> The testpmd sample application is a good choice, it's a powerful poll mode
> driver management framework hosts various forwarding engine.
Not sure it is a good choice.
The goal of testpmd is to test every PMD features.
How far can we go in adding some stack processing while keeping it
easily maintainable?
> Now with the vhost pmd feature, it can also handle vhost devices, only a
> new forwarding engine is needed to make use of it.
Why a new forwarding engine is needed for vhost?
> portfwd is implemented to this end.
>
> Features of portfwd:
>
> 1) Build up traffic from simple rx/tx to complex scenarios easily
>
> 2) Rich performance statistics for all ports
Have you checked CONFIG_RTE_TEST_PMD_RECORD_CORE_CYCLES and
CONFIG_RTE_TEST_PMD_RECORD_BURST_STATS?
> 3) Core affinity manipulation
>
> 4) Commands for run time configuration
>
> Notice that portfwd has fair performance, but it's not for getting the
> "maximum" numbers:
>
> 1) It buffers packets for burst send efficiency analysis, which increase
> latency
>
> 2) It touches the packet header and collect performance statistics which
> adds overheads
>
> These "extra" overheads are actually what happens in real applications.
[...]
> Implementation details
> ----------------------
>
> To enable flexible traffic flow setup, each port has 2 ways to forward
> packets in portfwd:
Should not it be 2 forward engines?
Please first describe the existing engines to help making a decision.
> 1) Forward based on dst ip
[...]
> 2) Forward to a fixed port
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-21 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-20 22:43 Zhihong Wang
2016-04-20 22:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 1/2] testpmd: add portfwd engine Zhihong Wang
2016-04-20 22:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 2/2] testpmd: add portfwd commands Zhihong Wang
2016-04-21 9:54 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-04-21 11:00 ` [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH 0/2] performance utility in testpmd Bruce Richardson
2016-04-22 5:51 ` Wang, Zhihong
2016-04-22 5:24 ` Wang, Zhihong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1946900.ocWSxO32dE@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
--cc=zhihong.wang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).