DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Emmerich <emmericp@net.in.tum.de>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2015 20:50:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de> (raw)

Hi,

I'm working on a DPDK-based packet generator [1] and I recently tried to
upgrade from DPDK 1.7.1 to 2.0.0.
However, I noticed that DPDK 1.7.1 is about 25% faster than 2.0.0 for my use
case.

So I ran some basic performance tests on the l2fwd example with DPDK 1.7.1,
1.8.0 and 2.0.0.
I used an Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 CPU clocked down to 1.2 GHz in order to
ensure that the CPU and not the network bandwidth is the bottleneck.
I configured l2fwd to forward between two interfaces of an X540 NIC using
only a single CPU core (-q2) and measured the following throughput under
full bidirectional load:


Version  TP [Mpps] Cycles/Pkt
1.7.1    18.84     84.925690021
1.8.0    16.78     95.351609058
2.0.0    16.40     97.56097561

DPDK 1.7.1 is about 15% faster in this scenario. The obvious suspect is the
new mbuf structure introduced in DPDK 1.8, so I profiled L1 cache misses:

Version   L1 miss ratio
1.7.1     6.5%
1.8.0    13.8%
2.0.0    13.4%


FWIW the performance results with my packet generator on the same 1.2 GHz
CPU core are:

Version  TP [Mpps]  L1 cache miss ratio
1.7      11.77      4.3%
2.0      9.5        8.4%


The discussion about the original patch [2] which introduced the new mbuf
structure addresses this potential performance degradation and mentions that
it is somehow mitigated.
It even claims a 20% *increase* in performance in a specific scenario.
However, that doesn't seem to be the case for both l2fwd and my packet
generator.

Any ideas how to fix this? A 25% loss in throughput prevents me from
upgrading to DPDK 2.0.0. I need the new lcore features and the 40 GBit
driver updates, so I can't stay on 1.7.1 forever.

Paul


[1] https://github.com/emmericp/MoonGen
[2] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.networking.dpdk.devel/5155

             reply	other threads:[~2015-04-26 18:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-04-26 18:50 Paul Emmerich [this message]
2015-04-27  8:06 ` Pavel Odintsov
2015-04-27 17:38   ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2015-04-27 22:28     ` Paul Emmerich
2015-04-28  5:50       ` Matthew Hall
2015-04-28 10:56         ` Paul Emmerich
2015-04-28 10:43       ` Paul Emmerich
2015-04-28 10:55         ` Bruce Richardson
2015-04-28 11:32           ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2015-04-28 10:58       ` Bruce Richardson
2015-04-28 11:31       ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2015-04-28 11:48         ` Paul Emmerich
2015-05-05 14:56           ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo

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=6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de \
    --to=emmericp@net.in.tum.de \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    /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).