* [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).