From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA37A00E6 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 11:13:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD2DA4C93; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 11:13:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140048.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.48]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18D93772 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 11:13:22 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=oOn1zKEgyaJBIrrMWRmi93UNahqUUL4qxdVFViie0vc=; b=OgBVABIp4q3+nokBDkKZzrNdUchquJ6c2kIZCgmb9YmuGjR/0Fx1TbI4QlhyNSx0wUpoHZyU/binFfifA9sEYHONTLuVSeFX/qQSvOAiBFkFj/GpN3p0DthlOiV0lQA2e4+VH5COs4EImyzy8eQ2JaT66Uv5Fkhgvp11/M3p9BE= Received: from AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (20.178.89.23) by AM6PR08MB4471.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (20.179.7.214) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.18; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:13:21 +0000 Received: from AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a019:568d:d0c2:59b7]) by AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a019:568d:d0c2:59b7%4]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.018; Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:13:21 +0000 From: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" To: "Shreyansh.jain@nxp.com" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: nd , nd Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port Thread-Index: AQHUo1eqaIUoRjuicUqwMQcvs709jaYyVziwgAA8NpCABkkJgIADH8bg Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 09:13:20 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190103112932.4415-1-shreyansh.jain@nxp.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580148A942C6@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com; x-originating-ip: [113.29.88.7] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2f7d76f2-5c5b-49f8-1ca9-08d6c0b9709b x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(7168020)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:AM6PR08MB4471; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM6PR08MB4471: x-ld-processed: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d,ExtAddr nodisclaimer: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 00073DB75F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(366004)(136003)(346002)(376002)(39850400004)(396003)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(55016002)(71190400001)(9686003)(8936002)(256004)(6246003)(14444005)(53546011)(110136005)(4326008)(2906002)(6436002)(81166006)(53936002)(81156014)(93886005)(3846002)(6506007)(71200400001)(66066001)(6116002)(14454004)(74316002)(106356001)(76176011)(97736004)(478600001)(5660300002)(446003)(186003)(52536014)(105586002)(305945005)(26005)(54906003)(25786009)(33656002)(229853002)(102836004)(316002)(7736002)(99286004)(7696005)(486006)(476003)(86362001)(2501003)(72206003)(68736007)(11346002)(55236004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM6PR08MB4471; H:AM6PR08MB3782.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: FMkaf3DzDBDU0UNoiJsLKTmCfUz2mfVI98a2gQ066FLgaXVy/BkMCzDg4hYYGJh1xmpyULTTE3c3ztAucPmdoqr7npbuLNC+Uypa8K8NlGZy+WXWKeW5XkghwKwowzBVBkZa+vjyBIpHXn3GhGpfoDneMfpiWYc2nQB3FABrPYJHIQNPuJVhkm79JxZFHzj7YWAsoWvYdn+Bj2qCqcMm/L62KxAK5AL7o+GPR6VJtX3X/TP6+CW8p3ttKK5tCWJ3NEIIPnofAcU2Zu6LKBztwUmXmI6CY7VJ31OVZ5YtDf8DxJqWYT22Zq73w+n0lFxPGCRzs1Xa7o62REO4N00nyCzCAlihd4SrvGLirTRnrBN3hWotSauM9afWa/6ppw2tTFGyDs7SrqmxMX6YROAJJ8DydNswADsEOA/cIx+c8mY= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2f7d76f2-5c5b-49f8-1ca9-08d6c0b9709b X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Apr 2019 09:13:20.7168 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR08MB4471 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190414091320.Ntg4WHjUEKgnmfIeS3ANH3gKOQ_aPpSLE9JsxTQCqlg@z> Hi Shreyansh, > -----Original Message----- > From: Shreyansh Jain > Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 17:25 > To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Ruifeng Wang > (Arm Technology China) ; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: nd > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer > pool per port >=20 > Hi Konstantin, Ruifeng, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ananyev, Konstantin > > Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 3:00 PM > > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ; > > Shreyansh Jain ; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: nd > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate > > buffer pool per port > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Shreyansh, > > > > > > I tried this patch on MacchiatoBin + 82599 NIC. > > > Compared with global-pool mode, per-port-pool mode showed slightly > > lower performance in single core test. > > > > That was my thought too - for the case when queues from multiple ports > > are handled by the same core it probably would only slowdown things. >=20 > Thanks for your comments. >=20 > This is applicable for cases where separate cores can handle separate por= ts - > each with their pools. (somehow I felt that message in commit was adequat= e > - I can rephrase if that is misleading) >=20 > In case there is enough number of cores available for datapath, such > segregation can result in better performance - possibly because of drop i= n > pool and cache conflicts. > At least on some of NXP SoC, this resulted in over 15% improvement. > And, in other cases it didn't lead to any drop/negative-impact. >=20 > > Wonder what is the use case for the patch and what is the performance > > gain you observed? >=20 > For hardware backed pools, hardware access and exclusion are expensive. B= y > segregating pool/port/lcores it is possible to attain a conflict free pat= h. This is > the use-case this patch targets. > And anyways, this is an optional feature. >=20 > > Konstantin > > > > > In dual core test, both modes had nearly same performance. >=20 > OK >=20 > > > > > > My setup only has two ports which is limited. > > > Just want to know the per-port-pool mode has more performance gain > > when many ports are bound to different cores? >=20 > Yes, though not necessarily *many* - in my case, I had 4 ports and even t= hen > about ~10% improvement was directly visible. I increased the port count a= nd > I was able to touch about ~15%. I did pin each port to a separate core, t= hough. > But again, important point is that without this feature enabled, I didn't= see > any drop in performance. Did you observe any drop? >=20 No, no drop without the feature enabled in my test. > > > > > > Used commands: > > > sudo ./examples/l3fwd/build/l3fwd -c 0x4 -w 0000:01:00.0 -w > > 0000:01:00.1 -- -P -p 3 --config=3D'(0,0,2),(1,0,2)' --per-port-pool > > > sudo ./examples/l3fwd/build/l3fwd -c 0xc -w 0000:01:00.0 -w > > 0000:01:00.1 -- -P -p 3 --config=3D'(0,0,2),(1,0,3)' --per-port-pool > > > > > > Regards, > > > /Ruifeng > > > >=20 > [...]