* [dpdk-dev] DPDK Latency Issue @ 2014-05-22 16:44 Jun Han 2014-05-22 17:06 ` Shaw, Jeffrey B 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jun Han @ 2014-05-22 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dev Hi all, I measured a roundtrip latency (using Spirent traffic generator) of sending 64B packets over a 10GbE to DPDK, and DPDK does nothing but simply forward back to the incoming port (l3fwd without any lookup code, i.e., dstport = port_id). However, to my surprise, the average latency was around 150 usec. (The packet drop rate was only 0.001%, i.e., 283 packets/sec dropped) Another test I did was to measure the latency due to sending only a single 64B packet, and the latency I measured is ranging anywhere from 40 usec to 100 usec. I do not understand why this is so slow. Can someone explain the reasoning behind this phenomenon? Thank you so much! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Latency Issue 2014-05-22 16:44 [dpdk-dev] DPDK Latency Issue Jun Han @ 2014-05-22 17:06 ` Shaw, Jeffrey B 2014-05-26 19:39 ` Jun Han 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Shaw, Jeffrey B @ 2014-05-22 17:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jun Han, dev Hello, > I measured a roundtrip latency (using Spirent traffic generator) of sending 64B packets over a 10GbE to DPDK, and DPDK does nothing but simply forward back to the incoming port (l3fwd without any lookup code, i.e., dstport = port_id). > However, to my surprise, the average latency was around 150 usec. (The packet drop rate was only 0.001%, i.e., 283 packets/sec dropped) Another test I did was to measure the latency due to sending only a single 64B packet, and the latency I measured is ranging anywhere from 40 usec to 100 usec. 40-100usec seems very high. The l3fwd application does some internal buffering before transmitting the packets. It buffers either 32 packets, or waits up to 100us (hash-defined as BURST_TX_DRAIN_US), whichever comes first. Try either removing this timeout, or sending a burst of 32 packets at time. Or you could try with testpmd, which should have reasonably low latency out of the box. There is also a section in the Release Notes (8.6 How can I tune my network application to achieve lower latency?) which provides some pointers for getting lower latency if you are willing to give up top-rate throughput. Thanks, Jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Latency Issue 2014-05-22 17:06 ` Shaw, Jeffrey B @ 2014-05-26 19:39 ` Jun Han 2014-05-28 12:58 ` Jun Han 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jun Han @ 2014-05-26 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; +Cc: dev Thanks a lot Jeff for your detailed explanation. I still have open question left. I would be grateful if someone would share their insight on it. I have performed experiments to vary both the MAX_BURST_SIZE (originally set as 32) and BURST_TX_DRAIN_US (originally set as 100 usec) in l3fwd main.c. While I vary the MAX_BURST_SIZE (1, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128) and fix BURST_TX_DRAIN_US=100 usec, I see a low average latency when sending a burst of packets less than or equal to the MAX_BURST_SIZE. For example, when MAX_BURST_SIZE is 32, if I send a burst of 32 packets or less, then I get around 10 usec of latency. When it goes over it, it starts to get higher average latency, which make total sense. My main question are the following. When I start sending continuous packet at a rate of 14.88 Mpps for 64B packets, it shows consistently receiving an average latency of 150 usec, no matter what MAX_BURST_SIZE. My guess is that the latency should be bounded by BURST_TX_DRAIN_US, which is fixed at 100 usec. Would you share your thought on this issue please? Thanks, Jun On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B <jeffrey.b.shaw@intel.com>wrote: > Hello, > > > I measured a roundtrip latency (using Spirent traffic generator) of > sending 64B packets over a 10GbE to DPDK, and DPDK does nothing but simply > forward back to the incoming port (l3fwd without any lookup code, i.e., > dstport = port_id). > > However, to my surprise, the average latency was around 150 usec. (The > packet drop rate was only 0.001%, i.e., 283 packets/sec dropped) Another > test I did was to measure the latency due to sending only a single 64B > packet, and the latency I measured is ranging anywhere from 40 usec to 100 > usec. > > 40-100usec seems very high. > The l3fwd application does some internal buffering before transmitting the > packets. It buffers either 32 packets, or waits up to 100us (hash-defined > as BURST_TX_DRAIN_US), whichever comes first. > Try either removing this timeout, or sending a burst of 32 packets at > time. Or you could try with testpmd, which should have reasonably low > latency out of the box. > > There is also a section in the Release Notes (8.6 How can I tune my > network application to achieve lower latency?) which provides some pointers > for getting lower latency if you are willing to give up top-rate throughput. > > Thanks, > Jeff > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Latency Issue 2014-05-26 19:39 ` Jun Han @ 2014-05-28 12:58 ` Jun Han 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Jun Han @ 2014-05-28 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; +Cc: dev Hi all, I realized I made a mistake on my previous post. Please note the changes below. "While I vary the MAX_BURST_SIZE (1, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128) and fix BURST_TX_DRAIN_US=100 usec, I see a low average latency when sending a burst of packets greater than the MAX_BURST_SIZE. For example, when MAX_BURST_SIZE is 32, if I send a burst of 32 packets or larger, then I get around 10 usec of latency. When the burst size is less than 32, I see higher average latency, which make total sense." On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Jun Han <junhanece@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks a lot Jeff for your detailed explanation. I still have open > question left. I would be grateful if someone would share their insight on > it. > > I have performed experiments to vary both the MAX_BURST_SIZE (originally > set as 32) and BURST_TX_DRAIN_US (originally set as 100 usec) in l3fwd > main.c. > > While I vary the MAX_BURST_SIZE (1, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128) and fix > BURST_TX_DRAIN_US=100 usec, I see a low average latency when sending a > burst of packets less than or equal to the MAX_BURST_SIZE. > For example, when MAX_BURST_SIZE is 32, if I send a burst of 32 packets or > less, then I get around 10 usec of latency. When it goes over it, it starts > to get higher average latency, which make total sense. > > My main question are the following. When I start sending continuous packet > at a rate of 14.88 Mpps for 64B packets, it shows consistently receiving an > average latency of 150 usec, no matter what MAX_BURST_SIZE. My guess is > that the latency should be bounded by BURST_TX_DRAIN_US, which is fixed at > 100 usec. Would you share your thought on this issue please? > > Thanks, > Jun > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B <jeffrey.b.shaw@intel.com > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> > I measured a roundtrip latency (using Spirent traffic generator) of >> sending 64B packets over a 10GbE to DPDK, and DPDK does nothing but simply >> forward back to the incoming port (l3fwd without any lookup code, i.e., >> dstport = port_id). >> > However, to my surprise, the average latency was around 150 usec. (The >> packet drop rate was only 0.001%, i.e., 283 packets/sec dropped) Another >> test I did was to measure the latency due to sending only a single 64B >> packet, and the latency I measured is ranging anywhere from 40 usec to 100 >> usec. >> >> 40-100usec seems very high. >> The l3fwd application does some internal buffering before transmitting >> the packets. It buffers either 32 packets, or waits up to 100us >> (hash-defined as BURST_TX_DRAIN_US), whichever comes first. >> Try either removing this timeout, or sending a burst of 32 packets at >> time. Or you could try with testpmd, which should have reasonably low >> latency out of the box. >> >> There is also a section in the Release Notes (8.6 How can I tune my >> network application to achieve lower latency?) which provides some pointers >> for getting lower latency if you are willing to give up top-rate throughput. >> >> Thanks, >> Jeff >> > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-28 12:58 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-05-22 16:44 [dpdk-dev] DPDK Latency Issue Jun Han 2014-05-22 17:06 ` Shaw, Jeffrey B 2014-05-26 19:39 ` Jun Han 2014-05-28 12:58 ` Jun Han
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).