From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com (mail-wr0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F7C2B9B for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:15:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k6so170982095wre.2 for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:15:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BZt7Zc0Urnp2NREdaqLz51XTR+otget20XAQPHlo8lQ=; b=WGHBbT0w/e/owAA3R7wRohLAC/cNcJ8Um7TM2y3nhrudd+mfmQ6eFPIL9ho4KPPfKp zPFGp+RgBss5EoUauIkLnpjfUU/gzJhm9shPevsZ4/tnlDnlY+oAckt0+C5NYeL8/GhR bC5JV4aF47v7o59NLNNwi4+/QKPVWEz8Se9UEXzwcd7ElilhHCNaKfl8RFV3WVpYnrMS BOTA2dYk2oujFWEJkVC8KETfHEZ4i/BoouE0EaIZy4QsB1XkJcO6gKmmyhpxWhTZ11kB boJzUgDSqoOCHtiAvWjch6WTkgsj+RQBQYX9aSQnIZP8oCC80Eyhcm3ghqGqdmc0KGs3 S2tg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BZt7Zc0Urnp2NREdaqLz51XTR+otget20XAQPHlo8lQ=; b=FTEQPqT61lyOIuYCnKpcaQq0u5v37Ul3/ayihaJVuU5F3TdxFMzpM2leeoCaFT3xPc J5v5/yQRSodUc3L5B2Ch+2nu0VlN/wQV2fy1IQ1DxUXWizlaPFl1YbovPClimgGshgUN o2Z0OY3tee5UEN/VyYHvigruI7M8/SzhDfbj7LDjuF35fvWsxyQfTU9xsePyVWxyb/Y7 f70SkvffQK3RJHx7drmIKGWL08GdytcAQ0bWarteIpcs/y2Dk8nz5uoZLyS5+yNd4vcv FUOO3bgnUD+T+NzdlaIvfPNlpp5oWc0w7zRXVVR/hZ2zJLWj/F1qOAty6kPg9HJs75hU yPlQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2ESkc7w/Qlh7IagewXj6fTV9neFjiHDfRFcC0+2RUxbsKhG9ao d7cKxewPXpnxt5kQ X-Received: by 10.28.168.130 with SMTP id r124mr10238906wme.34.1491236127182; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:15:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d7sm8749929wrc.6.2017.04.03.09.15.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:15:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Olivier Matz Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "Chilikin, Andrey" , "jblunck@infradead.org" , "nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:15:25 +0200 Message-ID: <2731871.jrfrpyQStK@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE30C3@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20170331105925.135c7377@platinum> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE30C3@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization 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, 03 Apr 2017 16:15:27 -0000 2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t > > > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here is what I have in MPPS: > > > > > > > > 1c/1t 1c/2t > > > > 53.3 58.7 current > > > > 52.1 58.8 original patchset > > > > 53.3 58.8 removed patches 3 and 9 > > > > 53.1 58.7 with konstantin's patch > > > > > > > > So we have 2 options here: > > > > > > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, by the way) > > > > 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we have something that > > > > really no impact > > > > > > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in terms > > > > of cycles per packet. > > > > > > > > > > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we can > > > afford to spend a little more time looking at this before we decide. > > > I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with i40e with > > > Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double check the other > > > possible issues he reported in his other emails. While I don't want this > > > patchset held up for a long time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is > > > probably needed on it. > > > > > > > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;) > > > > I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly, > > I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it > > is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably one of > > the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be better next > > time. > > > > Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now. > > I am also leaning towards option 1, but agree that some extra testing first > need to be done before making the final decision. > BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1. > Konstantin Please, can we have a conclusion now?