DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Shaw, Jeffrey B" <jeffrey.b.shaw@intel.com>,
	 "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a	bitfield
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:27:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5379B25B.6050003@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4032A54B6BB5F04B8C08B6CFF08C59285542085B@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2147 bytes --]

Hi Jeff,

On 05/09/2014 06:11 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote:
> I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the patches have settled.

Here are some performance numbers I've measured with the TSO
patches. The test platform is:

+-----------+           +-----------+
|           |           |           |
| traffic   |-----------| dpdk      |
| generator |-----------| testpmd   |
|           |-----------|           |
|           |-----------|           |
|           |           |           |
+-----------+           +-----------+

- 4 ixgbe ports
- sandy bridge at 2.7 Ghz

I've only included numbers for pkt_size=64. Other packet sizes
do not bring more information in this case.

I have 4 test cases:

- testpmd in iofwd mode with normal tx/rx function
- testpmd in iofwd mode with simple tx/rx function (txqflags=0xf01)
- testpmd in macfwd mode with normal tx/rx function
- testpmd in macfwd mode with simple tx/rx function (txqflags=0xf01)

I tested this for 1c1t, 1c2t, 2c2t, 2c4t, 4c8t on the following version:

- dpdk.org head
- dpdk.org + tso patchs until 6/11 (included): it includes all mbuf
   reworks (data_offset instead of data, remove ctrl mbuf, use 48 bits
   physical address)
- dpdk.org + all tso series

The conclusion of the tests is:

Patches up to 6/11 do not bring any performance regression. On the
other hand, the full TSO patch series introduces a small performance
regression (usually corresponding to ~5 cycles per packet). This is
probably due to additional tests related to TSO done in driver.
I suppose that this performance loss is acceptable if we consider
that TSO will bring a huge performance enhancement for many real use
cases.

By the way, I found lower numbers in macfwd mode + simple rx/tx
with current version (without my patches) with 1c2t. It seems
reproduceable.

I'll soon provide a v2 that will include:

- the split of patch 6/11 (cosmetics vs functional)
- the split of patch 11/11 (ixgbe vs generic changes)
- new checksum flags PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD and PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD
   proposed by Stephen
- modifications of external PMDs (memnic, virtio, vmxnet3)

Regards,
Olivier

[-- Attachment #2: iofwd_normalrxtx.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 15340 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: iofwd_simplerxtx.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 15346 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4: macfwd_normalrxtx.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 15378 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #5: macfwd_simplerxtx.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 15345 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-05-19  7:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-09 14:50 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/11] ixgbe/mbuf: add TSO support Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 01/11] igb/ixgbe: fix IP checksum calculation Olivier Matz
2014-05-15 10:40   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 02/11] mbuf: rename RTE_MBUF_SCATTER_GATHER into RTE_MBUF_REFCNT Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 03/11] mbuf: remove rte_ctrlmbuf Olivier Matz
2014-05-25 21:39   ` Gilmore, Walter E
2014-05-26 12:23     ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-26 16:40     ` Dumitrescu, Cristian
2014-05-26 22:43     ` Neil Horman
2014-05-27  0:17   ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-05-28  9:45     ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 04/11] mbuf: remove the rte_pktmbuf structure Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 15:39   ` Shaw, Jeffrey B
2014-05-09 16:06     ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-09 16:11       ` Shaw, Jeffrey B
2014-05-14 14:07         ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-05-15  9:53           ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-19  7:27         ` Olivier MATZ [this message]
2014-05-19  8:25           ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-05-19  9:30             ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-19  9:57               ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 06/11] mbuf: replace data pointer by an offset Olivier Matz
2014-05-12 14:12   ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-05-12 14:36     ` Venkatesan, Venky
2014-05-12 14:41       ` Neil Horman
2014-05-12 15:07         ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-12 15:59           ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-05-12 16:13             ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-12 17:13               ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-05-13 13:29                 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-12 16:06           ` Venkatesan, Venky
2014-05-12 18:39             ` Neil Horman
2014-05-13 13:54               ` Venkatesan, Venky
2014-05-13 14:09                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 07/11] mbuf: add functions to get the name of an ol_flag Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 08/11] mbuf: change ol_flags to 32 bits Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 09/11] mbuf: rename vlan_macip_len in hw_offload and increase its size Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 10/11] testpmd: modify source address to validate checksum calculation Olivier Matz
2014-05-09 14:50 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 11/11] ixgbe/mbuf: add TSO support Olivier Matz
2014-05-12 14:30   ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-05-15 15:09   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-05-15 15:39     ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-15 16:30       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-05-16 12:11         ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-16 17:01           ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-05-19 12:32             ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-05-09 17:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 00/11] " Stephen Hemminger
2014-05-09 21:49   ` Olivier MATZ
2014-05-10  0:39     ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-05-19 12:47 ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5379B25B.6050003@6wind.com \
    --to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=jeffrey.b.shaw@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).