From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B783237 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:28:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2017 05:28:24 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,311,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="37297575" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Jan 2017 05:28:23 -0800 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:30:47 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ors=E1k?= Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Jan Viktorin , dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20170130133047.GI20916@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1610499.AMUobBPor6@xps13> <20170112023058.GF2402@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170112160256.6915ff12.viktorin@rehivetech.com> <20170113061309.GF9770@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170116071218.GN9770@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <46569522-b2c3-2a33-9111-049b73c79760@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20170116111256.GA11439@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <8e8178c6-caa2-1b6e-10a0-c83820868db5@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20170116112110.GD10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] net/virtio: fix performance regression due to TSO enabling X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:28:26 -0000 On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:26:41PM +0100, Michal Orsák wrote: > >>>>>>For such workload, I don't think it would behaviour worse on ARM. > >>>>>No reply yet; I will treat it as no objections, and please shout out if any. > >>>>> > >>>>>Both applied to dpdk-next-virtio. > >>>>> > >>>>> --yliu > >>>>Hello, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>currently I am running short of time. If you have any test prepared which i > >>>>can just ran, please send me a link. > >>>No link, but you could try: > >>> > >>>- a typical PVP test > >>> > >>>- a txonly test: running txonly fwd mode in guest PMD while running > >>> rxonly in fwd mode. > >>> > >>>The second is a micro test, thus I saw way bigger boost. > >>> > >>>When are you available for the testing, btw? > >>25.1.2017+ > >Okay, I will hold on a while to apply them. > Ok, I will send you results when I have them. Again, no reply yet. I'm appying them to dpdk-next-virtio. I really don't think it could perform worse in ARM, as it removes a costly cache invalidation operation (which should be more expensive than the instruction cycles). OTOH, again, testing is welcome, if it's later proved to be worse on ARM (which I highly doubt), I could revert them. --yliu