From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <emmericp@net.in.tum.de>
Received: from mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
 (mail-out1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.8])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44559C53E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:43:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from charmander.net.in.tum.de (charmander.net.in.tum.de
 [131.159.20.23])
 by mail.net.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C627188DBA7;
 Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:43:16 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Paul Emmerich <emmericp@net.in.tum.de>
In-Reply-To: <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:43:16 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <47D837AA-FE82-45A1-AC3D-3CF600F5CC19@net.in.tum.de>
References: <6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de>
 <CALgsdbciDyJLm8Rp9GNbDb6sN=eCcFEVkWsSw95fvG32mYfqBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D89727297ADB@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de>
To: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:43:17 -0000

Hi,

sorry, I mixed up the hardware I used for my tests.


Paul Emmerich <emmericp@net.in.tum.de>:
> CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1230 v2
> TurboBoost and HyperThreading disabled.
> Frequency fixed at 3.30 GHz via acpi_cpufreq.

The CPU frequency was fixed at 1.60 GHz to enforce
a CPU bottleneck.


My original post said that I used a Xeon E5-2620 v3
at 1.2 GHz, this is incorrect. The calculation for Cycles/Pkt
in the original post used the correct 1.6 GHz figure, though.

(I used the E5 CPU for the evaluation of my packet generator
performance with 1.7.1/2.0.0, not for the l2fwd test.)


Sorry for the confusion.


Paul