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 6608AA00E6 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:29:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1198F1B19A; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:29:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20041.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8561B160 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 12:29:29 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=FyGmAUxJ+wQsZoIBhtlpv8J9lITDO3B6Aas9xN2OQqA=; b=H42hlEaUCCdDtH5+tvfSncqy/RNBUimzths2yt7XBdOwtqGHx2EZnBPsJW1UsqVJMSYJyvH5LtJunwpwDmuhCVu0KptckM+kskjR45pjEoP02mmsX0xARvDyQLiUIsOFWF9CTsH1uX2GxQKO061nqzOJREUfU2/KCJVw8vwngsA= Received: from VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.177.56.80) by VI1PR04MB4288.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (52.134.31.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1792.18; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:29:27 +0000 Received: from VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::48ee:dfc2:13c2:2f96]) by VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::48ee:dfc2:13c2:2f96%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.018; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:29:27 +0000 From: Shreyansh Jain To: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: nd , nd Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool per port Thread-Index: AdTzc1rUGo2n26ZETrGLIXPJWhFUfA== Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:29:11 +0000 Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 10:28:49 +0000 Message-ID: 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=shreyansh.jain@nxp.com; x-originating-ip: [92.121.36.198] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a496b5cb-3c54-4de2-b3c5-08d6c18d3cd4 x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600140)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR04MB4288; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR04MB4288: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-forefront-prvs: 000800954F x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(346002)(13464003)(199004)(189003)(55016002)(54906003)(305945005)(6436002)(74316002)(110136005)(99286004)(4326008)(6666004)(53936002)(7736002)(97736004)(71200400001)(25786009)(6246003)(14444005)(86362001)(256004)(71190400001)(14454004)(81166006)(2906002)(81156014)(316002)(66066001)(478600001)(476003)(2501003)(8936002)(33656002)(486006)(6506007)(7696005)(44832011)(68736007)(52536014)(9686003)(6116002)(5660300002)(3846002)(105586002)(106356001)(53546011)(229853002)(186003)(102836004)(26005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR04MB4288; H:VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: /uyILPnRbybsW5Gg/jZO1OUTVMzktp3aNkWuRBljxSfkMBuBIYD1/rft7gcXiDzT6qBBKmbi/a4+lyTxakhRjmPj18Ol87O5hTzNcE83qk2wheEaIy472rdwUZzPQttrIs2lYwBCcyBYVKerppsSxYiRJKb6/w3jr/oSJze7JJSof0KpN9hrkEv4Z1oe/Xz6nIfzlZZm2fihpaq34DoTSCFR4eqoofe4ilwgvFds6btXSKZ2fIoMeSBAUtrOwP8S4kPiIXYHk12DgatDaTwuZ7cqh3g/Mpm6lpGYuHa9nitHBTVC1OHFP5u9EVvmUzadIqxBP0nXkkD92lMMqx9U+CkU9CcQzIXRE+zTY+heGyCBXJrSkELGtHORraOo1jQMmXzr3vpnqzMph6RUeOF5Q5r7K0fs7CEhllq14X7sYNo= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a496b5cb-3c54-4de2-b3c5-08d6c18d3cd4 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Apr 2019 10:29:27.3705 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR04MB4288 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: <20190415102911.inn8hLW-ymEM1mtCK4CR-5H-wmZrFzTqnRjbQ521iBM@z> Hello Ruifeng, >=20 >=20 > Hi Shreyansh, >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shreyansh Jain > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 14:48 > > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ; > > Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org > > Cc: nd ; nd > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate > buffer > > pool per port > > > > Hi Ruifeng, > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > For hardware backed pools, hardware access and exclusion are > > > expensive. By > > > > segregating pool/port/lcores it is possible to attain a conflict > free > > > path. This is > > > > the use-case this patch targets. > > > > And anyways, this is an optional feature. > > > > > > > > > Konstantin > > > > > > > > > > > In dual core test, both modes had nearly same performance. > > > > > > > > OK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > Yes, though not necessarily *many* - in my case, I had 4 ports and > > > even then > > > > about ~10% improvement was directly visible. I increased the port > > > count and > > > > I was able to touch about ~15%. I did pin each port to a separate > > > core, though. > > > > But again, important point is that without this feature enabled, I > > > didn't see > > > > any drop in performance. Did you observe any drop? > > > > > > > > > > No, no drop without the feature enabled in my test. > > > > So, in case this is an optional feature, it should be fine, right? > > (Obviously, assuming that my logical implementation is correct) > > > > At my end also, I saw no drop in performance without this feature > (Default) > > and a decent increase with this (with separate port-core combination) > on > > NXP platform. > > > > [...] >=20 > Tested on LS2088A and observed 12% performance gain when 4 ports were > used. Thanks for verifying this. > I think sample_app_ug document should be updated to add the new option. Yes, indeed. I will send an updated version. > Acked-by: Ruifeng Wang >=20 Thanks.