From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495CF3B5 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:30:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D23312B2D; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.36.7.65] (vpn1-7-65.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.65]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uATATx35002070 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 05:30:01 -0500 To: Yuanhan Liu References: <20161123210006.7113-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> <20161124050751.GC5048@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20161129101647.GP5048@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Cc: thomas.monjalon@6wind.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com, zhiyong.yang@intel.com, dev@dpdk.org, fbaudin@redhat.com From: Maxime Coquelin Message-ID: <7b9bda04-3216-f54e-2b30-4772445c60eb@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:29:58 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161129101647.GP5048@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] doc: introduce PVP reference benchmark 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: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:30:04 -0000 Hi Yuanhan, On 11/29/2016 11:16 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 08:35:51AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >> >> >> On 11/24/2016 06:07 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: >>> First of all, thanks for the doc! It's a great one. >> Thanks. >> I would be interested to know if you have other tuning I don't mention >> in this doc. > > I was thinking we may need doc some performance impacts by some features, > say we observed that indirect desc may be good for some cases, while may > be bad for others. Also, the non mergeable Rx path outweighs the mergeable > Rx path. If user cares about the perfomance and ascertains all packets > fits into a typical MTU, he may likely want to disable the mergeable > feature, which is enabled by default. > > Maybe we could start a new doc, or maybe we could add a new section here? I agree that we should documents impact of Virtio features on traffic profile. My opinion is that it deserves a dedicated document. For this PVP doc, I suggest we add a section stating that one could try with different Virtio features, and in Kevin's result template proposal, we add a line for Virtio features enabled/disabled. Thanks, Maxime > > --yliu >