From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495CF3B5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; 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 <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
References: <20161123210006.7113-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20161124050751.GC5048@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <f9f4f377-5fa2-3f9e-76af-a26e3b852de0@redhat.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 <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
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 <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: 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
>