From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (mail-oi0-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE53DE3 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:34:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id u143so118097245oif.3 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:34:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imvisiontech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gKAU6kKh0WDj5rjLW3TA4kVGfILYgQWLtWfYLky4dxY=; b=c/TC1vprUbpj5nlEbydG1aDPt1wwZ8Dz+RNEKAQcg6mwxGGhSqbWt18uXs0DcFtuyJ FgmcWY7btn9plvkNmlUNH/QALOLPWKTjyjWSXRVvUFlofG4e42mCs9P8i0bUM29k/7Ua y9rlE1+UVFk2Zfvj6BgUUWwnBtthPCAxP3kwiOMvNeeHYpAdyIkYKlWkDSiMJu6/+op/ lg1KcYWOMIq21il7rgq/Gznbv0atviL1ldNTSrcwWjH6HfNnwdG4RmqaYXryNBJ/v7Q6 aXyECWi8lleOWDWfthTcxXGCqjeLy5gGsVrHzXClUrQ/DLfuWDawiWrlHi+QzD1bsuzJ NcrA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gKAU6kKh0WDj5rjLW3TA4kVGfILYgQWLtWfYLky4dxY=; b=NS3yii3u4Q2fdUCa2zg6HN4fxzbD3ISfmPltTnB97czXdl7ZQ1Lv6Tjx4F3uYc6u1p aUDeRuBNOrT7slB/E1rUfcK1crdompCMcCPmAKmtkUSKi09zApd3nFGumtHW4PNv2XrZ 3ttJPD/uGvSmy9fEvh1YiEkyC7pZhPeXMeEJDnOa8BdkyntXruNinfMz9aJLoQAL/Jne CY4r0Ni8027k4PoNTKVQHJeBU0RmPDX9AdJ+HHTYZRLYr/pUQ8ZfHVw/imd3sxMxe6IF 3yQee5JdM5bya9C8tVPMhhFdwVwzn5RWch1Y6/MSdAGYuODxETYHZjAoxXNniuj/LVES YLcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXICrxzHaS4MCepWzVpZPb6suVByNwJX8e+hfo5+9arLTKJNx8IjAfBxSsrDKgZGCWJl8w8ak52IXtSHdg== X-Received: by 10.202.79.138 with SMTP id d132mr17197021oib.169.1484656459872; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:34:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.50.70 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:34:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Shirley Avishour Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:34:19 +0200 Message-ID: To: Ferruh Yigit Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] drops while transmitting to the kni using rte_kni_tx_burst() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:34:20 -0000 Hi, can the KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL decrease to lower values than 5 usecs?? is it effective at all? and what is the purpose of KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM? I am not sure I understand what it does and what should I do with it to improve the performance. thanks! On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Shirley Avishour wrote: > Hi, > KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL is currently set to 5usec. how should I > tweak this value to get better performance? > and can you explain the use of KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM and what can I possibly > modify it to ? > > Thanks! > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Ferruh Yigit > wrote: > >> On 1/16/2017 2:47 PM, Shirley Avishour wrote: >> > Hi, >> > As I wrote the kernel thread runs on a dedicated lcore. >> > running top while my application is running I see kni_single and the cpu >> > usage is really low... >> > Is there any rate limitation for transmitting to the kernel interface >> > (since packets are being copied in the kernel). >> >> Yes, kind of, kernel thread sleeps periodically, with a value defined by >> KNI_KTHREAD_RESCHEDULE_INTERVAL. You can try tweaking this value, if you >> want thread do more work, less sleep J >> >> Also KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM can be updated for same purpose. >> >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Ferruh Yigit > > > wrote: >> > >> > On 1/16/2017 12:20 PM, Shirley Avishour wrote: >> > > Hi, >> > > I have an application over dpdk which is consisted of the >> following threads >> > > each running on a separate core: >> > > 1) rx thread which listens on in a poll mode for traffic >> > > 2) 2 packet processing threads (for load balancing) >> > > 3) kni thread (which also runs on a separate core). >> > >> > This is kernel thread, right? Is it bind to any specific core? >> > Is it possible that this thread shares the core with 2nd processing >> > thread when enabled? >> > >> > > >> > > the rx thread receives packets and clones them and transmit a copy >> > to the >> > > kni and the other packet is sent to the packet processing unit >> > (hashing >> > > over 2 threads). >> > > the receive traffic rate is 100Mbps. >> > > When working with single packet processing thread I am able to get >> > all the >> > > 100Mbps towards the kni with no drops. >> > > but when I activate my application with 2 packet processing >> > threads I start >> > > facing drops towards the kni. >> > > the way I see it the only difference now is that I have another >> > threads >> > > which handles an mbuf and frees it once processing is completed. >> > > Can anyone assist with this case please? >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >