From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD91A0A02; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:10:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8AD8140D3A; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:10:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F37B140D0B for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:10:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5955C0092; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:10:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=fm3; bh= 3lCH7KS6W6FyYb/vD/gAYwE67K96riWTKA2hG1mIWJE=; b=x4e072nGM9mXWsHN nJkN2TxsnIVwFmkZgM+8QYum/BimfUzTEoPDoYLSGNTWW0QPeJFgVMc/awZ9lVYR bKk02Z/+wAY1NvoZYB7t97Ay26xYNHt8I/prW+blv6WNFNwtNrSYmMYXprOkA8r7 E8OIyhsTN0YYKNC7BXTwaaoC6wo7BgEnuW5KuR+AzB0YHEVtiKhSrgYA0JjL3YVX RrO1Il4p5EyMnbGiFz3an/T1wfrAMS1HXEKBLMI/nr4Wbh+CpZLFQGKwhAmj/5WP HLUcxLF61pwHhw7QfUwWNjRJ4aakX40ZjIcxDmnmbc7PQmhROHaPACDEVW5f8dbg Mah7+Q== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=3lCH7KS6W6FyYb/vD/gAYwE67K96riWTKA2hG1mIW JE=; b=X/CxZ92/5qgehHkkG0HU5kDkDvhVxTlAYWaa9AsNWD5O9eHiiX+aLstKI ZOxPC2ycCNR95e/opld65nOWYYJPkXjCla+cQ7oQSBgdcRsoLPTe3tixI4tJhw1S nYSzOskAfIWGmn/Z4F6oEmAqnhqfprNM+wfzMsoMeHK3wbi24xYMV8aqr2s9qgzT yAvTsDN/ekJdlr2gncI8yXxO7R4UMJ0SLOpYcJ1jm4zgyVrQ4RNHh/rinBNaGxOG Hz77sIKtWNFtYCUfKnd/+tnI4OmZLGfM6WpHFTtxCepdl6knAWDCIK9F8SjXHs1o +5/btx10171BCr2or9p5oamxICPWg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudegledgudduiecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedugefgvdefudfftdefgeelgffhueekgfffhfeujedtteeutdej ueeiiedvffegheenucfkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecuvehluhhsthgvrh fuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvth X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 6A3181080064; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 04:10:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "Rong, Leyi" Cc: Jerin Jacob , David Marchand , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Zhang, Qi Z" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "Ananyev, Konstantin" Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 09:10:43 +0100 Message-ID: <7025245.ydTqbP526v@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20201104072810.105498-1-leyi.rong@intel.com> <5787678.zEJ4OYuhaz@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: enable multiple Tx queues on a lcore X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 25/03/2021 06:38, Rong, Leyi: > From: Thomas Monjalon > > 05/11/2020 10:24, Rong, Leyi: > > > From: Jerin Jacob > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:34 PM Rong, Leyi wrote: > > > > > From: David Marchand > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:34 AM Rong, Leyi > > wrote: > > > > > > > As there always has thoughput limit for per queue, on some > > > > > > > performance test case by using l3fwd, the result will limited > > > > > > > by the per queue thoughput limit. With multiple Tx queue > > > > > > > enabled, the per queue thoughput limit can be eliminated if > > > > > > > the CPU core is not the bottleneck. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah interesting. > > > > > > Which nic has such limitations? > > > > > > How much of an improvement can be expected from this? > > > > > > > > > > The initial found was on XXV710 25Gb NIC, but suppose such issue > > > > > can happen on more NICs as the high-end CPU per core boundary is > > > > > higher than many NICs(except 100Gb and above) per queue performance > > boundary. > > > > > The improvement can be about 1.8X with that case@1t2q. > > > > > > > > As far as I understand, the Current l3fwd Tx queue creation is like this: > > > > If the app has N cores and M ports then l3fwd creates, N x M Tx > > > > queues in total, What will be new values based on this patch? > > > > Thank you Jerin for providing some info missing in the description of the patch. > > > > > Hi Jacob, > > > > > > Total queues number equals to queues per port multiply port number. > > > Just take #l3fwd -l 5,6 -n 6 -- -p 0x3 --config > > > '(0,0,5),(0,1,5),(1,0,6),(1,1,6)' as example, With this patch appied, > > > totally 2x2=4 tx queues can be polled, while only > > > 1x2=2 tx queues can be used before. > > > > It does not reply above question with N x M. > > > > > > Does this patch has any regression in case the NIC queues able to > > > > cope up with the throughput limit from CPU. > > > > > > Regression test relevant with l3fwd passed with this patch, no obvious > > > result drop on other cases. > > > > It does not reply the general question for all drivers you did not test. > > > > As you probably noticed, this patch is blocked for months because it is not > > properly explained. > > > > Hi Thomas, > > This patch can be abandoned after synced with Konstantin months ago. And update the state to superseded on patchwork, Thanks! "Superseded" means a newer version has been sent. I will change to "Rejected".