From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA962C4E4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:50:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.160] (99-34-229-174.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net
 [99.34.229.174])
 by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14FDC80C003;
 Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:49:17 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
In-Reply-To: <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:50:55 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0B4E9314-9F6A-4AE6-8B1F-B41F9A5264B1@mhcomputing.net>
References: <6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de>
 <CALgsdbciDyJLm8Rp9GNbDb6sN=eCcFEVkWsSw95fvG32mYfqBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D89727297ADB@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de>
To: Paul Emmerich <emmericp@net.in.tum.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 05:50:58 -0000

On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Paul Emmerich <emmericp@net.in.tum.de> =
wrote:
> Let me know if you need any additional information.
> I'd also be interested in the configuration that resulted in the 20% =
speed-
> up that was mentioned in the original mbuf patch

Not sure if it's relevant or not, but there was another mail claiming =
PCIe MSI-X wasn't necessarily working in DPDK 2.x. Not sure if that =
could be causing slowdowns when there are drastic volumes of 64-byte =
packets causing a lot of PCI activity.

Also, you are mentioning some specific patches were involved... so I =
have to ask if anybody tried git bisect yet or not. Maybe easier than =
trying to guess at the answer.

Matthew.=