Hello,

We are going to go ahead and enable this testing per-patch starting today,
but again we looked at the performance metrics and they seemed reasonable -
so we should be good to go.

If you do end up wanting to take a closer look, let us know what info we
can provide. We can also grant you VPN/SSH access to the DUT system if you
want to take a look for any reason.

Thanks.

On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 10:58 AM Cody Cheng <ccheng@iol.unh.edu> wrote:

> Hi Kai,
>
> I am reaching out to you regarding our efforts to set up a new QAT
> device at the DPDK Community Lab. This is for adding a new QAT Device,
> beyond the QAT PCI card that we set up and began testing last year for
> an ARM Ampere System.
>
> I've set up testing for the Intel QAT 4xxx series device, but I just
> wanted to double-check that the performance metrics we are seeing from
> DPDK's test-crypto-perf application look acceptable to you. We are
> running a DTS testsuite which uses the dpdk-test-crypto-perf
> application in throughput, latency, and verify mode for testing. If
> you want to see the test plan, you can read it here:
>
> https://git.dpdk.org/tools/dts/tree/test_plans/crypto_perf_cryptodev_perf_test_plan.rst
>
> Could you review the test results and let me know if they seem correct
> for this QAT SKU?
>
> Here are the test results. The metrics you are looking for should be
> visible in the perf_cryptodev_result.json file:
>
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PfFziVYrD_Z2HQfXprty2lLNq5YX1Y7Y
>
> Thanks,
> Cody Cheng
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:36 PM Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > You can bounce the numbers, or any questions, off Kai Ji (added).
> >
> >
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Patrick Robb <probb@iol.unh.edu>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 6:03 PM
> > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > Cc: Cody Cheng <ccheng@iol.unh.edu>; Dean Marx <dmarx@iol.unh.edu>;
> Adam Hassick <ahassick@iol.unh.edu>; Nicholas Pratte <npratte@iol.unh.edu>;
> ci@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Intel QuickAssist crypto operations testing
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you remember last year when we had a tech board call about the server
> refresh at UNH-IOL, you recommended that for the Intel processor DUT
> system, we get a processor SKU which includes a QAT device? We did this,
> and the SKU we selected was Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5415+.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those devices are QAT 4xxx series QAT 4942 as reported by
> dpdk-devbind.py --status:
> >
> >
> >
> > Crypto devices using kernel driver
> > ==================================
> > 0000:76:00.0 '4xxx Series QAT 4942' numa_node=0 drv=4xxx
> unused=qat_4xxx,vfio-pci
> > 0000:f3:00.0 '4xxx Series QAT 4942' numa_node=1 drv=4xxx
> unused=qat_4xxx,vfio-pci
> >
> >
> >
> > Cody has been setting up the testing for this QAT device, which is done
> via DPDK's test-crypto-perf application. He is satisfied with the metrics
> the card is getting with DPDK (he compared them against some reports Intel
> has published and also what we see on a QAT PCI card on an Ampere ARM
> system here at UNH).
> >
> >
> >
> > So, he thinks we are ready to go online. However, in order to be
> careful, we were wondering if we should run the information we have by an
> Intel contact first. Is there any DPDK/quickassist/crypto person on your
> team who could serve as a contact for this purpose? If so, I think Cody can
> add them to this thread and share the more detailed info for that person
> for them to approve (or disapprove).
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks let me know!
> >
> >
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
>