From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com
 [74.125.82.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E83018F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri,  8 Aug 2014 09:43:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k48so5235718wev.13
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent
 :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=YmKl8VLZvzvOppeOL3WNO5MCE5A6L3pKaj96bjlLUgk=;
 b=g8zl0eTXO8HP3FUi+pFmRsg1W0biuN7hoG/qvaFj3OUMJdgDNn3hRnPHAcg07TMFym
 7DOFq1SSX1M83hpBpI/zNK/b2AVxq657Jp6pjQxwkFKa4KebKg2TJJxRpiozaZJDnOk3
 is90PFfINBFDBVbuJy4WXzadyE4NLVhzb+Kx3D1k8JGeUQKNFreKp8Gi8wvSjH7fZDJb
 jzrYKd8KOmiacOPaU/Qh1+reCFcNcWn38XsC7uCLHvzwf4VIPmq/cvCZpwvTbznEpuPD
 sr85eQDag0eyMerjoDdIoOTH70u0j12eus9gkf3Gl6x6sWCUm4X+07Izw0WSNG0iR24P
 wyog==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlpQSjK1nUSXUSBwSF3zKoXkPNEs659LO6MP6o3EM0zLt4vFTsu3waFUop9zg/gA59L3xVs
X-Received: by 10.194.80.7 with SMTP id n7mr29695283wjx.8.1407483948355;
 Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from saturne.dev.6wind.com (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net.
 [82.239.227.177])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fs3sm4524768wic.20.2014.08.08.00.45.47
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53E4802F.70904@6wind.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:45:51 +0200
From: Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
Organization: www.6wind.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Linhaifeng <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>
References: <4099DE2E54AFAD489356C6C9161D533363BB3709@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <4099DE2E54AFAD489356C6C9161D533363BB3709@szxema505-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "Guofeng \(E\)" <wind.guo@huawei.com>,
 "lixiao \(H\)" <lixiao91@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Is VFIO driver's performance better than IGB_UIO?
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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 07:43:12 -0000

On 08/08/2014 09:41, Linhaifeng wrote:
> I have test the VFIO driver and IGB_UIO driver by l2fwd for many times. I find that the VFIO driver¡¯s performance is not better than the IGB_UIO.

You are right, under some conditions UIO is faster, VFIO provides
safety. The best solution is a PMD without UIO, neither VFIO.

which CPU are you using?

Best regards,
  Vincent