From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <as@steinhoff-automation.com>
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.17.10])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C5C156
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:50:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.178.126] (port-92-192-64-70.dynamic.qsc.de
 [92.192.64.70])
 by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu1) with ESMTP (Nemesis)
 id 0M21ZH-1VQovl2o8Z-00tinl; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:51:26 +0100
Message-ID: <5281EC08.9060408@steinhoff-automation.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:51:20 +0100
From: Armin Steinhoff <as@steinhoff-automation.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@dpdk.org
References: <mailman.0.1384159076.18289.dev@dpdk.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1384159076.18289.dev@dpdk.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:/Zb8w3AVIGMvAwyFMESrWGTo3ENfl/P9JMAMTF9TG2z
 7CSfq6H99hwiCVC+XvQPVZJEM94l+HnYHgiWZ3397BEKcKeTmW
 k1lw747IH4PYtuhW7ZUV5j8SJiXIBJV94zxGJpH2lx+UZekLDE
 ZpdNy1Xzi6zOek/Evu63svv2qdvF5lBXVA3iqlwWp1knUx6ntq
 /cftOe9WxHnbjOngqtHjGkpolIR+PUOa1ohF4IjOpdsicRVlQp
 ZWNA8LXza9IIVmtQnb0gmKYkeokHLRN1Q2ZbVn1wwAvt5WKQoc
 TNLDH18+AhMGH8H+nMpE+Oqy0vW34fW7LOAsW3nKZo09tsuQtp
 E2ArSCaZ2iK+DrEaLebMy5P/uf5D3nwhQQ6aUJn3+
Subject: [dpdk-dev] i210 performance ?
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, 12 Nov 2013 08:50:31 -0000


Hi All,

after porting Intel's Data Plan to QNX 6.5 I'm doing some performance
test with "testpmd".

I'm using a single i210 board installed on a dual core QNX 6.5 machine
and using "testpmd" as a packet generator (UDP packets).

The test are done with:

start:   testpmd -c 3 -n  -> interactive mode by default
            set burst 1
            set fwd txonly
            start
            stop

Without a delay between packets I see a huge number of dropped packets.
After introducing a delay of 60us after sending the "packet burst"
dropping of packets doesn't happen.

My questions are:  why dropps the i210 packets ?  Is it because of the
fact that probably all send descriptors are occupied ?

Best Regards

Armin Steinhoff