From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from stargate3.asicdesigners.com (stargate.chelsio.com [12.32.117.8]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DF4B8D3B for ; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 08:43:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com [10.193.185.94]) by stargate3.asicdesigners.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u127hYVx014166; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 23:43:35 -0800 Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 13:13:32 +0530 From: Rahul Lakkireddy To: David Marchand Message-ID: <20160202074330.GA3671@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> References: <1454076516-21591-1-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <1454076516-21591-5-git-send-email-david.marchand@6wind.com> <20160202070158.GA3459@scalar.blr.asicdesigners.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Nirranjan Kirubaharan , Kumar A S , Jan Viktorin Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/9] eal/linux: move back interrupt thread init before setting affinity 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, 02 Feb 2016 07:43:40 -0000 Hi David, On Monday, February 02/01/16, 2016 at 23:13:55 -0800, David Marchand wrote: > Hello Rahul, > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Rahul Lakkireddy > wrote: > > On Friday, January 01/29/16, 2016 at 15:08:31 +0100, David Marchand wrote: > >> Now that virtio pci driver is initialized in a constructor, we only need to > >> move the interrupt thread init after loading the plugins. > >> This way, chelsio driver should be happy again [1]. > > > > Thank you for this patch. I've tested it and it does improve the perf. > > back when there is a queue on master lcore in l3fwd app. > > Did you test the whole series ? or just this specific patch ? > I've tested only this particular patch, not the whole series. > Anyway, great, but this is still too fragile. > > As discussed in the same thread as the problem you reported, there is > some work over there to be done so that interrupts are "distributed" > in a more flexible way. > Did someone look at this ? > Plans to work on this ? (post 2.3, I suppose) > > > -- > David Marchand Thanks, Rahul