From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7218D3D for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:41:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id m79so21801784ioo.3 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:41:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/jvDQIyjUcGe4IT6Nw092UnktCHYQq7qtI/0p4bLBGA=; b=mDwyEtrf7HUAzEM3qSzvMMOK8llpOSF3Mxv9acNfaQIIDDC2Kc5gbcFUB8e+UE9AEm eIfaKjyWCEvDUl2ObZjtPEFxuRZwjyyIlw3SvJXzRkq2N+0zkSAMP2GMl7OCOK1lOH27 kesCD3uLZJd4CDvT7aUdhaeL3pPnChV3DqX200w6V/v0ZG+cGsEnhFztublwwvOP2zHP NUoW/UWAU7L1U0plNMoWuD5qwkw3FXP/W8mCxvAsmfj7WswC293llDDRxoE547t+k/S6 3RwJOTQJVULgUhb4CAHiCtE6Mx/p/hsgqBZAm16tRixUvz8mWZLSRdn9bhBJkeE+hkhI z0tA== 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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/jvDQIyjUcGe4IT6Nw092UnktCHYQq7qtI/0p4bLBGA=; b=ID9/KKc8SqJC9aaV1G//zMgLIKWGPksDmGQLo8y90Vi74Xzn6wtU2D00kHl3VU69T8 LM4RLs3aZLH3GYe4oxF0BoVg0IbQ3YYtZWpTWO67N3ocywizebksko2lSVuc9jAqMQ4Q 50ECkMXw70aOGcu9S+ZiR6hytgvSe3OQaB7WiTukurQqNeEdGlFfq2ijS0UHtwf0n6bl B1tgpgr0UNKyXQznpvKEnHKbYIG6r/izAwtR3YmZ32Qq1oZX4zvkdwS/IMC1A7hZh/8k YIj3R4JmigM9VxGCBdSiq47qyCIi1uWfJOq/Ndz2TRiqhszIWpFK05ZNo/SVjal/Oa9k FBfA== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMR0CXF6qHoz1139WbsJUrWsujmukccoRwr8T4XMtJeoSiGOwEZLcoRqwSXT9/thkjXcyMAEiuoMWXy4g== X-Received: by 10.107.132.231 with SMTP id o100mr13199480ioi.109.1474382516652; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:41:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.13.135 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2016 07:41:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <356cd0e7.bdfb.15747357ddf.Coremail.zhangwqh@126.com> References: <365e4837.62d.157448762d2.Coremail.zhangwqh@126.com> <356cd0e7.bdfb.15747357ddf.Coremail.zhangwqh@126.com> From: Andriy Berestovskyy Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:41:36 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?5byg5Lyf?= Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , Matthew Hall , nikita@gandi.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] lpm performance 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, 20 Sep 2016 14:41:57 -0000 AFAIR Intel hardware should do the 10Gbit/s line rate (i.e. ~14,8 MPPS) with one flow and LPM quite easily. Sorry, I don't have numbers to share at hand. Regarding the tool please see the pktgen-dpdk or TRex. Regarding the number of flows and overall benchmarking methodology - please see RFC2544. Andriy On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:47 PM, =E5=BC=A0=E4=BC=9F wro= te: > Thanks so much for your reply! Usually how did you test lpm performance > with variety of destination addresses? use which tool send the traffic? h= ow > many flows rules will you add? what's the performance you get? > > > > > > > At 2016-09-20 17:41:13, "Andriy Berestovskyy" wrote: >>Hey, >>You are correct. The LPM might need just one (TBL24) or two memory >>reads (TBL24 + TBL8). The performance also drops once you have a >>variety of destination addresses instead of just one (cache misses). >> >>In your case for the dst IP 192.168.1.2 you will have two memory reads >>(TBL24 + TBL8), because 192.168.1/24 block has the more specific route >>192.168.1.1/32. >> >>Regards, >>Andriy >> >>On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:18 AM, =E5=BC=A0=E4=BC=9F w= rote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> Does anyone test IPv4 performance? If so, what's the throughput? I can >>> get almost 10Gb with 64 byte packets. But before the test, I would exp= ect >>> it will be less than 10G. I thought the performance will not be affect= ed by >>> the number of rule entires. But the throughput will be related to whet= her >>> the flow needs to check the second layer table : TBL8. Is my understan= ding >>> correct? I added this flow entries following this link: >>> http://www.slideshare.net/garyachy/understanding-ddpd-algorithmics >>> slide 10, >>> >>> >>> >>> struct ipv4_lpm_route ipv4_lpm_route_array[] =3D { >>> >>> {IPv4(192, 168, 0, 0), 16, 0}, >>> >>> {IPv4(192, 168, 1, 0), 24, 1}, >>> >>> {IPv4(192, 168, 1, 1), 32, 2} >>> >>> }; >>> >>> send the flow with dst IP: >>> >>> 192.168.1.2 >>> >>> It should check the second layer table. But the performance is still 10= G. >>> Does any part go wrong with my setup? Or it really can achieve 10G with= 64 >>> byte packet size. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >>Andriy Berestovskyy > > > > --=20 Andriy Berestovskyy