From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-f178.google.com (mail-vc0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED5B57F18 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2014 03:12:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id la4so1261978vcb.23 for ; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:21:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=cNA5d7Fcsu/0YQ3eYSw12R9tAVq/arrD5IxCU1uQD0c=; b=FsSH9mf7z346yubXRxZfxQAkgH9bZBH7+QCo4mj29OPY5wmfbmX6xccOeeAVViLWSS PsVphBvQFNccD/bFTtLvgH6u8Tu0mGS0zMbii0CcI/DlC1rCaLlO3DujDrLr4t3kyR1H iJM8zkZtBI4GYoNPV0coLWEddxtHl1o53yThWO4weoxUu0Fm5iSpspwCYj2q0Mrli6qq TDgI7DYJAVemhKn15TB1JvN7QC6gvtRtA5fpoFZt5KXTkKJkVvpSvTjmfr3NKsY5fXBd M/4d5BOaBlDyg4bEiXBh7Sgyp9Zv6ZcrEeCaooaoUHPwoJISaiUVY50AQIr710h72scE H3gA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.220.187.8 with SMTP id cu8mr5530110vcb.31.1415326892253; Thu, 06 Nov 2014 18:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.10.21 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:21:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891263229A072@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <3EB4FA525960D640B5BDFFD6A3D891263229A072@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 18:21:32 -0800 Message-ID: From: Srikanth Akula To: "Dumitrescu, Cristian" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Max throughput Using QOS Scheduler 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: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 02:12:03 -0000 Hi Cristian, Thank you very much for your points and it should really help me in fixing few issues we might have. thanks again ! Regards, srikanth On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Dumitrescu, Cristian < cristian.dumitrescu@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Srikanth, > > > > >>Is there any difference between scheduler behavior for above two > scenarios while enqueing and de-queueing ?? > > All the pipe queues share the bandwidth allocated to their pipe. The > distribution of available pipe bandwidth between the pipe queues is > governed by features like traffic class strict priority, bandwidth sharin= g > between pipe traffic classes, weights of the queues within the same traff= ic > class, etc. In the case you mention, you are just using one queue for eac= h > traffic class. > > > > Let=E2=80=99s take an example: > > - Configuration: pipe rate =3D 10 Mbps, pipe traffic class 0 .. 3 > rates =3D [20% of pipe rate =3D 2 Mbps, 30% of pipe rate =3D 3 Mbps, 40% = of pipe > rate =3D 4 Mbps, 100% of pipe rate =3D 10 Mbps]. Convention is that traff= ic > class 0 is the highest priority. > > - Injected traffic per traffic class for this pipe: [3, 0, 0, 0] > Mbps =3D> Output traffic per traffic class for this pipe: [2 , 0, 0, 0] M= bps > > - Injected traffic per traffic class for this pipe: [0, 0, 0, 15] > Mbps =3D> Output traffic per traffic class for this pipe: [0, 0, 0, 10] M= bps > > - Injected traffic per traffic class for this pipe: [1, 10, 2, 15] > Mbps =3D> Output traffic per traffic class for this pipe: [1, 3, 2, 4] Mb= ps > > > > Makes sense? > > > > >>Queue size is 64 , and number of packets enqueued and dequeued is 64 as > well. > > I strongly recommend you never use a dequeue burst size that is equal to > enqueue burst size, as performance will be bad. > > > > In the qos_sched sample app, we use [enqueue burst size, dequeue burst > size] set to [64, 32], other reasonable values could be [64, 48], [32, 16= ], > etc. An enqueue burst bigger than dequeue burst will cause the big packet > reservoir which is the traffic manager/port scheduler to fill up to a > reasonable level that will allow dequeu to function optimally, and then t= he > system regulates itself. > > > > The reason is: since we interlace enqueue and dequeue calls, if you push > on every iteration e.g. 64 packets in and then look to get 64 packets out= , > you=E2=80=99ll only have 64 packets into the queues, then you=E2=80=99ll = work hard to find > them, and you get out exactly those 64 packets that you pushed in. > > > > >>And what is the improvements i would gain if i move to DPDK 1.7 w.r.t > QOS ? > > The QoS code is pretty stable since release 1.4, not many improvements > added (maybe it=E2=80=99s the right time to revisit this feature and push= it to the > next level =E2=80=A6), but there are improvements in other DPDK libraries= that are > dependencies for QoS (e.g. packet Rx/Tx). > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Regards, > > Cristian > > > > > > > > *From:* Srikanth Akula [mailto:srikanth044@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, October 30, 2014 4:10 PM > *To:* dev@dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian > *Subject:* Max throughput Using QOS Scheduler > > > > Hello All , > > > > I am currently trying to implement QOS scheduler using DPDK 1.6 . I have > configured 1 subport , 4096 pipes for the sub port and 4 TC's and 4 Queue= s . > > > > Currently i am trying to send packets destined to single Queue of the > available 16 queues of one of the pipe . > > > > Could some body explain what could be the throughput we can achieve using > this scheme. The reason for asking this is , i could sense different > behavior each time when i send traffic destined to different destination > Queues . > > > > for example : > > > > 1. << Only one stream>>> Stream destined Q0 of TC0 .. > > > > > > 2. << 4 streams >>>> 1st Stream destined for Q3 of Tc3 ... > > 2nd stream destined for Q2 of Tc2 > > 3rd stream destined for Q1 of TC1 > > 4th Stream destined for Q0 of TC0 > > > > Is there any difference between scheduler behavior for above two > scenarios while enqueing and de-queueing ?? > > > > Queue size is 64 , and number of packets enqueud and dequeued is 64 as > well. > > And what is the improvements i would gain if i move to DPDK 1.7 w.r.t QOS= ? > > > > > > Could you please clarify my queries ? > > > > > > Thanks & Regards, > Srikanth > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Intel Shannon Limited > Registered in Ireland > Registered Office: Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare > Registered Number: 308263 > Business address: Dromore House, East Park, Shannon, Co. Clare > > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the > sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by othe= rs > is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender and delete all copies. > >