From: Jun Han <junhanece@gmail.com>
To: "Jayakumar, Muthurajan" <muthurajan.jayakumar@intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] roundtrip delay
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 20:30:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGeT4PLVSANvc+0C6G8Cg2-PbAgJWDc48yOsMMVj2gzEem_8MQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5D695A7F6F10504DBD9B9187395A21797D0CC5F1@ORSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com>
Hi all,
I've also asked a similar question on the previous thread, but I'll copy it
here for better visibility. I would really appreciate it if you can provide
some hints to my question below. Thanks a lot!
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?
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Jayakumar, Muthurajan <
muthurajan.jayakumar@intel.com> wrote:
> Please kindly refer recent thread titled "DPDK Latency Issue" on similar
> topic. Below copied and pasted Jeff Shaw reply on that thread.
>
> 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
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Helmut Sim
> Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2014 7:55 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] roundtrip delay
>
> Hi,
>
> what is the way to optimize the round trip delay of a packet?
> i.e. receiving a packet and then resending it back to the network in a
> minimal time, assuming the rx and tx threads are on a continuous loop of
> rx/tx.
>
> Thanks,
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-27 18:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-25 14:54 Helmut Sim
2014-05-25 18:12 ` Jayakumar, Muthurajan
2014-05-27 18:30 ` Jun Han [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGeT4PLVSANvc+0C6G8Cg2-PbAgJWDc48yOsMMVj2gzEem_8MQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=junhanece@gmail.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=muthurajan.jayakumar@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).