From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92311101B for ; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D6C5F7B3; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 06:31:28 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com C0D6C5F7B3 Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx10.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=jfreimann@redhat.com Received: from localhost (dhcp-192-218.str.redhat.com [10.33.192.218]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 726986BF9C; Mon, 28 Aug 2017 06:31:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:31:23 +0200 From: Jens Freimann To: Tiwei Bie Cc: dev@dpdk.org, yliu@fridaylinux.org, maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, Zhihong Wang , Zhiyong Yang Message-ID: <20170828063123.l2eu7cetbr537boc@localhost.localdomain> References: <20170824021939.21306-1-tiwei.bie@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170824021939.21306-1-tiwei.bie@intel.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170714 (1.8.3) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.39]); Mon, 28 Aug 2017 06:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: adaptively batch small guest memory copies 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, 28 Aug 2017 06:31:29 -0000 Hi Tiwei, On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:19:39AM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: >This patch adaptively batches the small guest memory copies. >By batching the small copies, the efficiency of executing the >memory LOAD instructions can be improved greatly, because the >memory LOAD latency can be effectively hidden by the pipeline. >We saw great performance boosts for small packets PVP test. this sounds interesting. Do you have numbers showing how much performance improved for small packets? regards, Jens