From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.cs.hut.fi (mail.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.7]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36692594D for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 18:36:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hutcs.cs.hut.fi [130.233.192.10]) by mail.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B053309A9C; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 19:37:27 +0300 (EEST) Message-ID: <53CFE4C6.7080506@fixup.fi> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 16:37:26 +0000 From: Antti Kantee MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Kavanagh, Mark B" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance - linking against DPDK shared vs static libraries 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, 23 Jul 2014 16:36:04 -0000 On 23/07/14 15:58, Kavanagh, Mark B wrote: > Hi, > > I build a switching application, which links against DPDK shared libraries; when I run the application, I see throughput of X. I then build the application again, except this time I link against DPDK shared libraries, having modified the application's build parameters appropriately. In this case, I see a performance drop of around .04%, which given the high throughput of the application is significant. > > Is such performance degradation to be expected when using DPDK shared libraries, and if not, are there any best-known methods for preventing performance degradation, assuming that I may be constrained to using shared libraries going forward? Do you mean .04% or 4%? I would be more inclined to believe the latter. Shared libraries are inherently slower due to indirection from PIC, and being required to use them seems like a silly constraint in the context of high-performance computing. - antti