From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A449221 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 15:40:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e64so93448126vkg.0 for ; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:40:50 -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=MTNOqNtXLCICKt8LkXvoEiudv+oCwmfTeFjfsu0Mo/s=; b=G9wJGyN2m1YmsqXWku1JnDZe/LAgzr5B4ay1I2QaabSLZeioIRQyvTl/KaYc6Avhs7 hBtPqjACHngbGAeZ47YwfEXPJAgqrCQwx6ohdgPd511K7RknNUHI8m75m7qFwJAU6QWc /Gqs2eIU9MJVsAC1xhMrauWA7Kqt8DAIIwbGX5qM7kQp9+AJm9Ld4vMvg+SPqP1AQHEp hpVF+bNhTCZ9+sz7ohjnefLtYXLIXEeaIFgGt0h4KSBWr1lx6rC8j7m2nQiZvZnY9QMC jc5QTXS9z0tSjhByaAn9zAu9BD/uHwvVyN3Oke16fw0DbHm+uKW4vc9kYYRZDR7Befxv bO+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MTNOqNtXLCICKt8LkXvoEiudv+oCwmfTeFjfsu0Mo/s=; b=Akv3dD61wBnkpJS7U0z0ZIRNyXRDEqjAcjo1IOYctCSdt7yEKgTTCWMHVR5JN5AZx5 UdQrp2o/tc9WRYUxf4Ljp/gUKL7DSBDp8I0U7aVE1kNoPfppQDVD26GfuJkBZxdqU4cp SWIA8YOmz6nNtsvm0d7Tcra4evJBYieJvn0Dnwcwtt6Ocl7CaIiurod1dvVtMx7Yg0LF HUX77IQvxeZMdVWKDp+RcvGixnWsuZRMe3G8NpB512hd7ixqeILdnfoVJ8rKX3mCfhkm wkQn4r6SIIVmd0Ku8JBzoeOXyJ5ZzAlvXdCNDGZnI/ps7IbupLHc9xtPM1ZyfYUCQCpA x/4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORW9aLerwDbiMSXsbc8FFax85T+gH4jr+yknaKbCnlSttsAB/B65nNL3cjM56dOiXBfMlWonFffPDkIwg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.5.71 with SMTP id 68mr1546094vkf.157.1453819249568; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.152.208 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.152.208 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:40:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56A78163.5060500@ornl.gov> References: <56A6A46C.1050003@chocot.jp> <745DB4B8861F8E4B9849C970520ABBF149852DC7@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com> <56A78163.5060500@ornl.gov> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:40:49 -0800 Message-ID: From: Saurabh Mishra To: Lawrence MacIntyre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf size for jumbo frame 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: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:40:50 -0000 Hi, Since we do full content inspection, we will end up coalescing mbuf chains into one before inspecting the packet which would require allocating another buffer of larger size. I am inclined towards larger size mbuf for this reason. I have benchmarked a bit using apache benchmark and we see 3x performance improvement over 1500 mtu. Memory is not an issue. My only concern is that would all the dpdk drivers work with larger size mbuf? Thanks, Saurabh On Jan 26, 2016 6:23 AM, "Lawrence MacIntyre" wrote: > Saurabh: > > Raising the mbuf size will make the packet handling for large packets > slightly more efficient, but it will use much more memory unless the great > majority of the packets you are handling are of the jumbo size. Using more > memory has its own costs. In order to evaluate this design choice, it is > necessary to understand the behavior of the memory subsystem, which is VERY > complicated. > > Before you go down this path, at least benchmark your application using > the regular sized mbufs and the large ones and see what the effect is. > > This one time (01/26/2016 09:01 AM), at band camp, Polehn, Mike A wrote: > >> Jumbo frames are generally handled by link lists (but called something >> else) of mbufs. >> Enabling jumbo frames for the device driver should enable the right >> portion of the driver which handles the linked lists. >> >> Don't make the mbufs huge. >> >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Masaru OKI >> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 2:41 PM >> To: Saurabh Mishra; users@dpdk.org; dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf size for jumbo frame >> >> Hi, >> >> 1. Take care of unit size of mempool for mbuf. >> 2. Call rte_eth_dev_set_mtu() for each interface. >> Note that some PMDs does not supported change MTU. >> >> On 2016/01/26 6:02, Saurabh Mishra wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We wanted to use 10400 bytes size of each rte_mbuf to enable Jumbo >>> frames. >>> Do you guys see any problem with that? Would all the drivers like >>> ixgbe, i40e, vmxnet3, virtio and bnx2x work with larger rte_mbuf size? >>> >>> We would want to avoid detailing with chained mbufs. >>> >>> /Saurabh >>> >> > -- > Lawrence MacIntyre macintyrelp@ornl.gov Oak Ridge National Laboratory > 865.574.7401 Cyber Space and Information Intelligence Research Group > >