From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [143.182.124.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80504C6E for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 11:17:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 May 2014 02:17:14 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.98,926,1392192000"; d="scan'208";a="437957058" Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 May 2014 02:17:13 -0700 Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.66) by IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:17:13 +0100 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.239]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.197]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:17:13 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] L3FWD sample optimisation Thread-Index: AQHPdl3gK6SWDt+l+0qw3gvXPuOP65tUsGFggAENZuA= Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:17:12 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772580EFB3529@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] L3FWD sample optimisation 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: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:17:05 -0000 Hi Thomas, >As you are doing optimizations, it's important to know the performance gai= n. >It could help to mitigate future reworks. >So please, could you provide some benchmarking numbers in the commit log? Some performance data below. Also, forgot to mention that new code path can be switched on/off by settin= g ENABLE_MULTI_BUFFER_OPTIMIZE macro to 1/0. Do I need to resubmit the whole patch series, or just a cover letter, or ..= .? Konstantin SUT: dual-socket board IVB 2.8 GHz with 4 ports on 4 NIC (all at socket = 0) connected to the traffic generator. 2x1GB pages, kernel: 3.11.3-201.fc19.x86_64, gcc 4.8.2. 64B packets, using the packet flooding method. All 4 ports are managed by one logical core: Optimised scalar PMD RX/TX was used. DIFF % (NEW-OLD) IPV4-CONT-BURST: +23% IPV6-CONT-BURST : +13%=20 IPV4/IPV6-CONT-BURST: +8% IPV4-4STREAMSX8: +7% IPV4-4STREAMSX1: -2% Test cases description: IPV4-CONT-BURST - IPV4 packets all packets from the one input port are dest= ined for the same output port. IPV6-CONT-BURST - IPV6 packets all packets from the one input port are dest= ined for the same output port. IPV4/IPV6-CONT-BURST - mix of the first 2 with interleave=3D1 (e.g: IPV4,IP= V6,IPV4,IPV6, ...) IPV4-4STREAMSX1 - 4 streams of IPV4 packets, where all packets from same st= ream are destined for the same output port (e.g: IPV4_DST_P0, IPV4_DST_P1, IPV4_DST_P2, IPV4_DST_P3, IPV4_DST_P0, ...= ) IPV4-4STREAMSX8 - same as above but packets for each stream are coming in g= roups of 8 (e.g: IPV4_DST_P0 X 8, IPV4_DST_P1 X 8, IPV4_DST_P2 X 8, IPV4_DST_P3 X 8,= IPV4_DST_P0 X 8, ...) =20