DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Liang, Cunming" <cunming.liang@intel.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] app/test: unit test for rx and tx cycles/packet
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 13:17:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118501DD@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141021103315.GB12795@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:33 PM
> To: Liang, Cunming
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] app/test: unit test for rx and tx
> cycles/packet
> 
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 11:10:39AM +0000, Liang, Cunming wrote:
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > Very appreciate your comments.
> > I add inline reply, will send v3 asap when we get alignment.
> >
> > BRs,
> > Liang Cunming
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2014 1:52 AM
> > > To: Liang, Cunming
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] app/test: unit test for rx and tx
> cycles/packet
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 08:29:58PM +0800, Cunming Liang wrote:
> > > > It provides unit test to measure cycles/packet in NIC loopback mode.
> > > > It simply gives the average cycles of IO used per packet without test
> equipment.
> > > > When doing the test, make sure the link is UP.
> > > >
> > > > Usage Example:
> > > > 1. Run unit test app in interactive mode
> > > >     app/test -c f -n 4 -- -i
> > > > 2. Run and wait for the result
> > > >     pmd_perf_autotest
> > > >
> > > > There's option to choose rx/tx pair, default is vector.
> > > >     set_rxtx_mode [vector|scalar|full|hybrid]
> > > > Note: To get acurate scalar fast, please choose 'vector' or 'hybrid' without
> > > INC_VEC=y in config
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cunming Liang <cunming.liang@intel.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Notes inline
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > >  app/test/Makefile                   |    1 +
> > > >  app/test/commands.c                 |   38 +++
> > > >  app/test/packet_burst_generator.c   |    4 +-
> > > >  app/test/test.h                     |    4 +
> > > >  app/test/test_pmd_perf.c            |  626
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c |    6 +
> > > >  6 files changed, 677 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >  create mode 100644 app/test/test_pmd_perf.c
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/app/test/Makefile b/app/test/Makefile
> > > > index 6af6d76..ebfa0ba 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test/Makefile
> > > > +++ b/app/test/Makefile
> > > > @@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ SRCS-y += test_memzone.c
> > > >
> > > >  SRCS-y += test_ring.c
> > > >  SRCS-y += test_ring_perf.c
> > > > +SRCS-y += test_pmd_perf.c
> > > >
> > > >  ifeq ($(CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_TABLE),y)
> > > >  SRCS-y += test_table.c
> > > > diff --git a/app/test/commands.c b/app/test/commands.c
> > > > index a9e36b1..f1e746e 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test/commands.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test/commands.c
> > > > @@ -310,12 +310,50 @@ cmdline_parse_inst_t cmd_quit = {
> > > >
> > > > +#define NB_ETHPORTS_USED                (1)
> > > > +#define NB_SOCKETS                      (2)
> > > > +#define MEMPOOL_CACHE_SIZE 250
> > > > +#define MBUF_SIZE (2048 + sizeof(struct rte_mbuf) +
> > > RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM)
> > > Don't you want to size this in accordance with the amount of data your
> sending
> > > (64 Bytes as noted above)?
> > [Liang, Cunming] The case is designed to measure small packet IO cost with
> normal mbuf size.
> > Even if decreasing the size, it won't gain significant cycles.
> > >
> That presumes a non-memory constrained system, doesn't it?  I suppose in the
> end
> as long as you have consistency, its not overly relevant, but it seems like
> you'll want to add data sizing as a feature to this eventually (i.e. the ability
> to test performance for larger frames sizes), at which point you'll need to make
> this non-static anyway.
[Liang, Cunming] For a normal Ethernet packet(w/o jumbo frame), packet size is 1518B.
As in really network, there won't have huge number of jumbo frames.
The mbuf size 2048 is a reasonable value to cover most of the packet size.
It's also be chosen by lots of NIC as the default receiving buffer size in DMA register.
In case larger than the size, it need do scatter and gather but lose some performance.
The unit test won't measure size from 64 to 9600, won't plan to measure scatter-gather rx/tx.
It focus on 64B packet size and taking the mbuf size being used the most often.
> 
> > > > +static void
> > > > +print_ethaddr(const char *name, const struct ether_addr *eth_addr)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	printf("%s%02X:%02X:%02X:%02X:%02X:%02X", name,
> > > > +		eth_addr->addr_bytes[0],
> > > > +		eth_addr->addr_bytes[1],
> > > > +		eth_addr->addr_bytes[2],
> > > > +		eth_addr->addr_bytes[3],
> > > > +		eth_addr->addr_bytes[4],
> > > > +		eth_addr->addr_bytes[5]);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > This was copieed from print_ethaddr.  Seems like a good candidate for a
> common
> > > function in rte_ether.h
> > [Liang, Cunming] Agree with you, some of samples now use it with the same
> copy.
> > I'll rework it. Adding 'ether_format_addr' in rte_ether.h only for format the
> 48bits address output.
> > And leaving other prints for application customization.
> > >
> Sounds good.
> 
> > >
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void
> > > > +signal_handler(int signum)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	/* When we receive a USR1 signal, print stats */
> > > I think you mean SIGUSR2, below, SIGUSR1 tears the test down and exits the
> > > program
> > [Liang, Cunming] Thanks, it's a typo.
> > >
> > > > +	if (signum == SIGUSR1) {
> > > SIGINT instead.  Thats the common practice.
> > [Liang, Cunming] I understood your opinion.
> > The considerations I'm not using SIGINT instead are:
> > 1. We unset ISIG in c_lflag of term. CRTL+C won't trigger SIGINT in command
> interactive.
> >   It always has to explicitly send signal. No matter SIGUSR1 or SIGINT.
> > 2. By SIGINT semantic, expect to terminate the process.
> >   Here I expect to force stop this case, but still alive in command line.
> >   After it stopped, it can run again or start to run other test cases.
> >   So I keep SIGINT, SIGUSR1 in different behavior.
> > 3. It should be rarely used.
> >   Only when exception timeout, I leave this backdoor for automation test
> control.
> >   For manual test, we can easily force kill the process.
> >
> Hmm, ok, that sounds reasonable.
> 
> > >
> > > > +		printf("Force Stop!\n");
> > > > +		stop = 1;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	if (signum == SIGUSR2)
> > > > +		stats_display(0);
> > > > +}
> > > > +/* main processing loop */
> > > > +static int
> > > > +main_loop(__rte_unused void *args)
> > > > +{
> > > > +#define PACKET_SIZE 64
> > > > +#define FRAME_GAP 12
> > > > +#define MAC_PREAMBLE 8
> > > > +	struct rte_mbuf *pkts_burst[MAX_PKT_BURST];
> > > > +	unsigned lcore_id;
> > > > +	unsigned i, portid, nb_rx = 0, nb_tx = 0;
> > > > +	struct lcore_conf *conf;
> > > > +	uint64_t prev_tsc, cur_tsc;
> > > > +	int pkt_per_port;
> > > > +	uint64_t packets_per_second, total_packets;
> > > > +
> > > > +	lcore_id = rte_lcore_id();
> > > > +	conf = &lcore_conf[lcore_id];
> > > > +	if (conf->status != LCORE_USED)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	pkt_per_port =  MAX_TRAFIC_BURST / conf->nb_ports;
> > > > +
> > > > +	int idx = 0;
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < conf->nb_ports; i++) {
> > > > +		int num = pkt_per_port;
> > > > +		portid = conf->portlist[i];
> > > > +		printf("inject %d packet to port %d\n", num, portid);
> > > > +		while (num) {
> > > > +			nb_tx = RTE_MIN(MAX_PKT_BURST, num);
> > > > +			nb_tx = rte_eth_tx_burst(portid, 0,
> > > > +						&tx_burst[idx], nb_tx);
> > > > +			num -= nb_tx;
> > > > +			idx += nb_tx;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	printf("Total packets inject to prime ports = %u\n", idx);
> > > > +
> > > > +	packets_per_second = (link_mbps * 1000 * 1000) /
> > > > +		+((PACKET_SIZE + FRAME_GAP + MAC_PREAMBLE) * CHAR_BIT);
> > > > +	printf("Each port will do %"PRIu64" packets per second\n",
> > > > +		+packets_per_second);
> > > > +
> > > > +	total_packets = RTE_TEST_DURATION * conf->nb_ports *
> > > packets_per_second;
> > > > +	printf("Test will stop after at least %"PRIu64" packets received\n",
> > > > +		+ total_packets);
> > > > +
> > > > +	prev_tsc = rte_rdtsc();
> > > > +
> > > > +	while (likely(!stop)) {
> > > > +		for (i = 0; i < conf->nb_ports; i++) {
> > > > +			portid = conf->portlist[i];
> > > > +			nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst((uint8_t) portid, 0,
> > > > +						 pkts_burst, MAX_PKT_BURST);
> > > > +			if (unlikely(nb_rx == 0)) {
> > > > +				idle++;
> > > > +				continue;
> > > > +			}
> > > > +
> > > > +			count += nb_rx;
> > > Doesn't take into consideration error conditions.  rte_eth_rx_burst can
> return
> > > -ENOTSUP
> > [Liang, Cunming] It returns -ENOTSUP when turning on ETHDEV_DEBUG
> CONFIG.
> > The error is used to avoid no function call register.
> > When ETHDEV_DEBUG turn off, the NULL function call cause segfault directly.
> > So I think it's a library internal error.
> No, look at FUNC_PTR_OR_ERR_RET.  If the passed in function pointer is null,
> -ENOTSUPP will be returned to the application, you need to handle the error
> condition.
[Liang, Cunming] The runtime rte_eth_rx_burst is a inline function in rte_ethdev.h.
The one you're talking about is the one defined in rte_ethdev.c which is a extern non-inline function.
It works only when RTE_LIBRTE_ETHDEV_DEBUG turns on.
If we always turns such library internal checking on, it lose performance.
So I insist it's a library internal error checking, doesn't need to take care in application level.
> 
> > In such library exceptional case, I prefer not expecting sample/application to
> condition check library functional error.
> But you're assertion about the library handling the exception is wrong.
> 
> > >
> > > > +			nb_tx = rte_eth_tx_burst(portid, 0, pkts_burst, nb_rx);
> > > Ditto with -ENOTSUP
> > >
> > > > +			if (unlikely(nb_tx < nb_rx)) {
> > > What makes this unlikely?  Seems like a perfectly reasonable condition to
> happen
> > > to me.  If the network is busy, its completely likely that you will receive more
> > > frames than you send, if you elect to receive all frames.
> > [Liang, Cunming] For this case, NIC works in MAC loopback mode.
> > It firstly injects numbers of packets to NIC. Then NIC will loopback all packets to
> ingress side.
> > The code here will receive the packets, and send them back to NIC
> > Packets looping inside all come from initial injection.
> > As the total number of injected packets is much less than in-chip queue size,
> the tx egress queue shouldn't block desc. ring update.
> > So when receiving packets in line rate and nb_tx < nb_rx, it means tx cannot
> archive line rate.
> > When it happens, the cycles/packets result make no sense, as the bottle neck is
> NIC.
> > The drop counter can record it.
> Ok.
> 
> > >
> > > > +				drop += (nb_rx - nb_tx);
> > > > +				do {
> > > > +					rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts_burst[nb_tx]);
> > > Defer this, it skews your timing
> > [Liang, Cunming] Agree with you, I ever thought about it.
> > This test cases is designed to measure pure IO RX/TX routine.
> > When doing tx burst with result nb_tx < nb_rx, we either repeat re-send or
> drop it.
> > Each way introduces noise(adding additional control code), resending much
> times even cost more than free it.
> > The cycles/packets is useful when there's no packet drop, otherwise it gives the
> hint where the problem comes from (by idle or drop).
> I'm not sure what you're asserting here.  Are you suggesting that you want to
> include the time it takes to free memory buffers in your testing?  That seems
> dubious at best to me.  If you want to measure I/O, thats great, but memory
> management of packet buffers is a separate operation from that I/O
[Liang, Cunming] Agree with you. I means it doesn't need to take care of the mbuf free cost.
As I said in previous reply, it rarely happens in line rate.
The cycle measurement doesn't make much sense if happens.
On that time the unit test just notify it happens, and keep safe free all the unsent mbuf.

> 
> > >
> > > > +				} while (++nb_tx < nb_rx);
> > > > +			}
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		if (unlikely(count >= total_packets))
> > > > +			break;
> > > Whats the reasoning here?  Do you only ever expect to receive frames that
> you
> > > send?  If so, seems like this should call for a big warning to get printed.
> > [Liang, Cunming] The loop exits when the pre-calculated total_packets are
> received.
> > As the nb_rx is unpredictable, the packet counter may large equal than
> total_packets the last time.
> > The reason unlikely used here is because the condition becomes true only the
> last time.
> ok
> 
> > >
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	cur_tsc = rte_rdtsc();
> > > > +
> > > > +	for (i = 0; i < conf->nb_ports; i++) {
> > > > +		portid = conf->portlist[i];
> > > > +		int nb_free = pkt_per_port;
> > > > +		do { /* dry out */
> > > > +			nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst((uint8_t) portid, 0,
> > > > +						 pkts_burst, MAX_PKT_BURST);
> > > > +			nb_tx = 0;
> > > > +			while (nb_tx < nb_rx)
> > > > +				rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts_burst[nb_tx++]);
> > > > +			nb_free -= nb_rx;
> > > > +		} while (nb_free != 0);
> > > > +		printf("free %d mbuf left in port %u\n", pkt_per_port, portid);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > Whats the purpose of this?  Are you trying to flush the device?  Wouldn't it
> be
> > > enough just to stop the interface?
> > [Liang, Cunming] If we only run the cases once and exit, it doesn't matter.
> > But it's designed to run multi-times without exit, for the purpose of warming
> up or for getting average number.
> > So stopping device is not enough, we have to release the flying packets.
> >
> Ok
> 
> > >
> > > > +	if (count == 0)
> > > > +		return -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	printf("%lu packet, %lu drop, %lu idle\n", count, drop, idle);
> > > > +	printf("Result: %ld cycles per packet\n", (cur_tsc - prev_tsc) / count);
> > > > +
> > > Bad math here.  Theres no guarantee that the tsc hasn't wrapped
> (potentially
> > > more than once) depending on your test length.  you need to check the tsc
> before
> > > and after each burst and record an average of deltas instead, accounting in
> each
> > > instance for the possibility of wrap.
> > [Liang, Cunming] I'm not sure catch your point correctly.
> > I think both cur_tsc and prev_tsc are 64 bits width.
> > For 3GHz, I think it won't wrapped so quick.
> > As it's uint64_t, so even get wrapped, the delta should still be correct.
> But theres no guarantee that the tsc starts at zero when you begin your test.
> The system may have been up for a long time and near wrapping already.
> Regardless, you need to account for the possibility that cur_tsc is smaller
> than prev_tsc, or this breaks.
[Liang, Cunming] In case prev_tsc near wrapping, and cur_tsc get wrapped.
As they are unsigned, it still ok.
e.g. cur_tsc=0x2, prev_tsc=0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFC
Delta=cur_tsc-prev_tsc is 6, which is still correct.
And for uint64_t, we need to start computer for hundreds of years.
> 
> > >
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static int
> > > > +test_pmd_perf(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	uint16_t nb_ports, num, nb_lcores, slave_id = (uint16_t)-1;
> > > > +	uint16_t nb_rxd = RTE_TEST_RX_DESC_DEFAULT;
> > > > +	uint16_t nb_txd = RTE_TEST_TX_DESC_DEFAULT;
> > > > +	uint16_t portid;
> > > > +	uint16_t nb_rx_queue = 1, nb_tx_queue = 1;
> > > > +	int socketid = -1;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	printf("Start PMD RXTX cycles cost test.\n");
> > > > +
> > > > +	signal(SIGUSR1, signal_handler);
> > > Again SIGINT here.
> > >
> > > > +	signal(SIGUSR2, signal_handler);
> > > > +
> > > > +	nb_ports = rte_eth_dev_count();
> > > > +	if (nb_ports < NB_ETHPORTS_USED) {
> > > > +		printf("At least %u port(s) used for perf. test\n",
> > > > +		       NB_ETHPORTS_USED);
> > > > +		return -1;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (nb_ports > RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS)
> > > > +		nb_ports = RTE_MAX_ETHPORTS;
> > > > +
> > > > +	nb_lcores = rte_lcore_count();
> > > > +
> > > > +	memset(lcore_conf, 0, sizeof(lcore_conf));
> > > > +	init_lcores();
> > > > +
> > > > +	init_mbufpool(NB_MBUF);
> > > > +
> > > > +	reset_count();
> > > > +	num = 0;
> > > > +	for (portid = 0; portid < nb_ports; portid++) {
> > > > +		if (socketid == -1) {
> > > > +			socketid = rte_eth_dev_socket_id(portid);
> > > > +			slave_id = alloc_lcore(socketid);
> > > > +			if (slave_id == (uint16_t)-1) {
> > > > +				printf("No avail lcore to run test\n");
> > > > +				return -1;
> > > > +			}
> > > > +			printf("Performance test runs on lcore %u socket %u\n",
> > > > +			       slave_id, socketid);
> > > > +		}
> > > > +
> > > > +		if (socketid != rte_eth_dev_socket_id(portid)) {
> > > > +			printf("Skip port %d\n", portid);
> > > > +			continue;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* port configure */
> > > > +		ret = rte_eth_dev_configure(portid, nb_rx_queue,
> > > > +					    nb_tx_queue, &port_conf);
> > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +			rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > > +				"Cannot configure device: err=%d, port=%d\n",
> > > > +				 ret, portid);
> > > > +
> > > > +		rte_eth_macaddr_get(portid, &ports_eth_addr[portid]);
> > > > +		printf("Port %u ", portid);
> > > > +		print_ethaddr("Address:", &ports_eth_addr[portid]);
> > > > +		printf("\n");
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* tx queue setup */
> > > > +		ret = rte_eth_tx_queue_setup(portid, 0, nb_txd,
> > > > +					     socketid, &tx_conf);
> > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +			rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > > +				"rte_eth_tx_queue_setup: err=%d, "
> > > > +				"port=%d\n", ret, portid);
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* rx queue steup */
> > > > +		ret = rte_eth_rx_queue_setup(portid, 0, nb_rxd,
> > > > +						socketid, &rx_conf,
> > > > +						mbufpool[socketid]);
> > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +			rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE, "rte_eth_rx_queue_setup: err=%d,"
> > > > +				 "port=%d\n", ret, portid);
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* Start device */
> > > > +		stop = 0;
> > > > +		ret = rte_eth_dev_start(portid);
> > > > +		if (ret < 0)
> > > > +			rte_exit(EXIT_FAILURE,
> > > > +				"rte_eth_dev_start: err=%d, port=%d\n",
> > > > +				ret, portid);
> > > > +
> > > > +		/* always eanble promiscuous */
> > > > +		rte_eth_promiscuous_enable(portid);
> > > > +
> > > > +		lcore_conf[slave_id].portlist[num++] = portid;
> > > > +		lcore_conf[slave_id].nb_ports++;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +	check_all_ports_link_status(nb_ports, RTE_PORT_ALL);
> > > > +
> > > > +	init_traffic(mbufpool[socketid], tx_burst, MAX_TRAFIC_BURST);
> > > > +
> > > > +	rte_eal_remote_launch(main_loop, NULL, slave_id);
> > > > +	if (rte_eal_wait_lcore(slave_id) < 0)
> > > > +		return -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/* port tear down */
> > > > +	for (portid = 0; portid < nb_ports; portid++) {
> > > > +		if (socketid != rte_eth_dev_socket_id(portid))
> > > > +			continue;
> > > > +
> > > > +		rte_eth_dev_stop(portid);
> > > > +	}
> > > > +
> > > Clean up your allocated memory/lcores/etc?
> > [Liang, Cunming] It do cleanup on the beginning of case.
> > "Init_lcores","init_mbufpool","reset_count" guarantee the data clean before
> each testing.
> > And mbufpool only allocated once even if we run multiple times.
> Its a janitorial issue.  Before the program exits, you need to free any
> resources that you've allocated.
[Liang, Cunming] Yes, I do but only not for the mbuf pool.
Firstly the case exit is not equal to program exit. I expect the re-enter will use the same mempool, so that can do cache warm up.
Secondly, DPDK doesn't supply really mempool release. The program exit, the memzone then free.
> 
> Neil
> 
> > >
> > > Neil
> >
> >

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-10-21 20:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-25  6:12 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Cunming Liang
2014-08-25  6:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/5] app/test: unit test for rx and tx cycles/packet Cunming Liang
2014-08-25  6:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/5] app/test: measure standalone rx or " Cunming Liang
2014-08-25  6:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/5] ixgbe/vpmd: add fix to store unaligned mbuf point array Cunming Liang
2014-08-25  6:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/5] app/test: add unit test to measure RX burst cycles Cunming Liang
2014-08-25  6:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-09-03  1:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/5] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Zhan, Zhaochen
2014-10-10 12:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] " Cunming Liang
2014-10-10 12:29   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] app/test: unit test for rx and tx cycles/packet Cunming Liang
2014-10-10 17:52     ` Neil Horman
2014-10-12 11:10       ` Liang, Cunming
     [not found]         ` <E115CCD9D858EF4F90C690B0DCB4D8972262B720@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
2014-10-14  0:54           ` Liang, Cunming
2014-10-21 10:33         ` Neil Horman
2014-10-21 10:43           ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-10-21 13:37             ` Neil Horman
2014-10-21 22:43               ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-21 13:17           ` Liang, Cunming [this message]
2014-10-22 14:03             ` Neil Horman
2014-10-22 14:48               ` Liang, Cunming
2014-10-22 14:53               ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-22 15:09                 ` Richardson, Bruce
2014-10-24  3:06                   ` Liang, Cunming
2014-10-10 12:29   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] app/test: measure standalone rx or " Cunming Liang
2014-10-10 12:30   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] app/test: add unit test to measure RX burst cycles Cunming Liang
2014-10-10 12:30   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-10-20  8:13   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Cunming Liang
2014-10-20  8:13     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-10-20  8:13     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] app/test: measure the cost of rx/tx routines by cycle number Cunming Liang
2014-10-21  2:40     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Liu, Yong
2014-10-24  5:39     ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] " Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:39       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:39       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] app/test: measure the cost of rx/tx routines by cycle number Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:39       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] ethdev: fix wrong error return refer to API definition Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:57       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:58         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:58         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] app/test: measure the cost of rx/tx routines by cycle number Cunming Liang
2014-10-24  5:58         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] ethdev: fix wrong error return refere to API definition Cunming Liang
2014-10-27  1:20         ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Cunming Liang
2014-10-27  1:20           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/3] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-10-27  1:20           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/3] app/test: measure the cost of rx/tx routines by cycle number Cunming Liang
2014-11-11 23:28             ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-12  6:32               ` Liang, Cunming
2014-10-27  1:20           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/3] ethdev: fix wrong error return refere to API definition Cunming Liang
2014-10-27 16:03             ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-27  1:45           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Liu, Yong
2014-10-29  5:06           ` Liang, Cunming
2014-11-12  6:24           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/7] " Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/7] app/test: allow to create packets in different sizes Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/7] ixgbe:clean scattered_rx configure in dev_stop Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  7:53               ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-12  8:21                 ` Liang, Cunming
2014-11-12  9:24                   ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-12 10:29                     ` Liang, Cunming
2014-11-12 10:32                       ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-11-12 10:42                         ` Liang, Cunming
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 3/7] ether: new API to format eth_addr in string Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 4/7] app/testpmd: cleanup eth_addr print Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 5/7] examples: " Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 6/7] app/test: measure the cost of rx/tx routines by cycle number Cunming Liang
2014-11-12  6:24             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 7/7] ethdev: fix wrong error return refere to API definition Cunming Liang
2014-11-12 23:50             ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/7] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Thomas Monjalon
2014-10-24  5:59       ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] " Liang, Cunming
     [not found]       ` <1414130090-17910-1-git-send-email-y>
     [not found]         ` <1414130090-17910-4-git-send-email-y>
2014-10-24 11:04           ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] ethdev: fix wrong error return refere to API definition Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-10-27  0:58             ` Liang, Cunming
2014-10-28 12:21   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] app/test: unit test to measure cycles per packet Neil Horman

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=D0158A423229094DA7ABF71CF2FA0DA3118501DD@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=cunming.liang@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=nhorman@tuxdriver.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

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git