From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83EBC540 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:55:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2015 03:55:09 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,663,1422950400"; d="scan'208";a="717022289" Received: from unknown ([10.237.220.106]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2015 03:55:07 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:55:06 +0025 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:55:06 +0100 From: Bruce Richardson To: Paul Emmerich Message-ID: <20150428105505.GA7484@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de> <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de> <47D837AA-FE82-45A1-AC3D-3CF600F5CC19@net.in.tum.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47D837AA-FE82-45A1-AC3D-3CF600F5CC19@net.in.tum.de> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:55:11 -0000 On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:43:16PM +0200, Paul Emmerich wrote: > Hi, > > sorry, I mixed up the hardware I used for my tests. > > > Paul Emmerich : > > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1230 v2 > > TurboBoost and HyperThreading disabled. > > Frequency fixed at 3.30 GHz via acpi_cpufreq. > > The CPU frequency was fixed at 1.60 GHz to enforce > a CPU bottleneck. > > > My original post said that I used a Xeon E5-2620 v3 > at 1.2 GHz, this is incorrect. The calculation for Cycles/Pkt > in the original post used the correct 1.6 GHz figure, though. > > (I used the E5 CPU for the evaluation of my packet generator > performance with 1.7.1/2.0.0, not for the l2fwd test.) > > > Sorry for the confusion. > > > Paul Thanks for the update - we are investigating. /Bruce