* RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change [not found] <DB7PR07MB4489DB019CC14EBE5D4AC472F3AB9@DB7PR07MB4489.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> @ 2022-06-16 6:39 ` Jayatheerthan, Jay 2022-06-22 2:13 ` Jaeeun Ham 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jayatheerthan, Jay @ 2022-06-16 6:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaeeun Ham, dev; +Cc: Jerin Jacob [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3054 bytes --] Hi Jaeeun, See my responses inline below. -Jay From: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:51 AM To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com>; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com> Subject: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, There were latency delay when I increase dpdk(20.11.1) core. (one worker core was okay.) When I decrease the TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value(1024 to 32), it was okay It's TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD at lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c. // https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk-stable/tree/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c?h=20.11#n15 When TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value was changed from 1024 to 32, the latency test result was fine on 10 cores for low traffic(DL:20Mbps/UL:17kbps). I think that this can make call for rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() more frequently. But, I'm not sure whether this approach can cause worse performance or not. Do you have any opinion about this? [Jay] Yes, it will cause rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() to be called more often. It can lead to lesser batching benefit. Typical performance vs. latency trade-off decision apply here. Similar RDK RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD is patched on DUSG3 from 1024 to smaller value since DPDK 18.11.2: I'm not aware of any side-effect, I think it is needed to have low enough latency even at low traffic rates. For more details see Intel FP 22288<https://footprints.intel.com/MRcgi/MRlogin.pl?DL=22288DA14>. [Jay] Currently, TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD is not a configurable attr. TXA_MAX_NB_TX(128) looks the same as CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE(16384), then is it also should be tuned? [Jay] They both are different attributes. TXA_MAX_NB_TX refers to max number of queues in Tx adapter. CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE refers to event buffer size in Rx BD. --- dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base.orig 2020-01-29 15:05:10.000000000 +0100 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base 2020-01-29 15:11:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -566,9 +566,9 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES=100 CONFIG_RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE=4 CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE=32 -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=128 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=16384 CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_DEBUG=n -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=1024 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=32 --- dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-05 23:46:52.051051000 +0200 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-06 00:50:07.310766255 +0200 @@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ #define RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES 100 #define RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE 4 #define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE 32 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 128 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 1024 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 16384 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 10 #undef RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_MULTI_PKT_EVENT BR/Jaeeun [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14437 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change 2022-06-16 6:39 ` ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Jayatheerthan, Jay @ 2022-06-22 2:13 ` Jaeeun Ham 2022-06-25 3:19 ` Jaeeun Ham 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jaeeun Ham @ 2022-06-22 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jayatheerthan, Jay, dev; +Cc: Jerin Jacob [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3935 bytes --] Hi, Could you guide me on how to eliminate or reduce tx drop/retry? TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD helped somewhat but it was not cleared packet tx drop. ========[ TX adapter stats ]======== tx_retry: 17499893 tx_packets: 7501716 tx_dropped: 5132458 BR/Jaeeun From: Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:40 PM To: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com>; dev@dpdk.org Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com> Subject: RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi Jaeeun, See my responses inline below. -Jay From: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com<mailto:jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:51 AM To: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com<mailto:jerinj@marvell.com>>; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com<mailto:jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>> Subject: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, There were latency delay when I increase dpdk(20.11.1) core. (one worker core was okay.) When I decrease the TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value(1024 to 32), it was okay It's TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD at lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c. // https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk-stable/tree/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c?h=20.11#n15<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-dff86f66a37f4e0e&q=1&e=9d9b2326-a7ae-405b-bc88-9a28d777c306&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.dpdk.org%2Fdpdk-stable%2Ftree%2Flib%2Flibrte_eventdev%2Frte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c%3Fh%3D20.11%23n15> When TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value was changed from 1024 to 32, the latency test result was fine on 10 cores for low traffic(DL:20Mbps/UL:17kbps). I think that this can make call for rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() more frequently. But, I'm not sure whether this approach can cause worse performance or not. Do you have any opinion about this? [Jay] Yes, it will cause rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() to be called more often. It can lead to lesser batching benefit. Typical performance vs. latency trade-off decision apply here. Similar RDK RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD is patched on DUSG3 from 1024 to smaller value since DPDK 18.11.2: I'm not aware of any side-effect, I think it is needed to have low enough latency even at low traffic rates. For more details see Intel FP 22288<https://footprints.intel.com/MRcgi/MRlogin.pl?DL=22288DA14>. [Jay] Currently, TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD is not a configurable attr. TXA_MAX_NB_TX(128) looks the same as CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE(16384), then is it also should be tuned? [Jay] They both are different attributes. TXA_MAX_NB_TX refers to max number of queues in Tx adapter. CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE refers to event buffer size in Rx BD. --- dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base.orig 2020-01-29 15:05:10.000000000 +0100 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base 2020-01-29 15:11:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -566,9 +566,9 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES=100 CONFIG_RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE=4 CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE=32 -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=128 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=16384 CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_DEBUG=n -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=1024 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=32 --- dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-05 23:46:52.051051000 +0200 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-06 00:50:07.310766255 +0200 @@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ #define RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES 100 #define RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE 4 #define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE 32 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 128 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 1024 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 16384 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 10 #undef RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_MULTI_PKT_EVENT BR/Jaeeun [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17294 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change 2022-06-22 2:13 ` Jaeeun Ham @ 2022-06-25 3:19 ` Jaeeun Ham 2022-06-27 6:23 ` Jayatheerthan, Jay 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jaeeun Ham @ 2022-06-25 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jayatheerthan, Jay, dev; +Cc: Jerin Jacob [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5340 bytes --] Hi, Packets seem to be silently discarded in the RX NIC while waiting in the buffer, and it does not happen when I use only one worker core. I think multiple worker cores packet processing would have this problem to handle heavy traffic in parallel. I want to increase buffer size to solve this as below, then is it right to change only modify the number from 4 to 8? I am trying to gather DPDK and PMD driver log such as "--log-level="7" --log-level="pmd.net,7". Could you recommend how to set the log-level string to confirm silent packet drop? dpdk-stable-20.11.1/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c #define BATCH_SIZE 32 #define BLOCK_CNT_THRESHOLD 10 #define ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE (4*BATCH_SIZE) // e.g. (8*BATCH_SIZE) #define ETH_RX_ADAPTER_SERVICE_NAME_LEN 32 #define ETH_RX_ADAPTER_MEM_NAME_LEN 32 #define RSS_KEY_SIZE 40 /* value written to intr thread pipe to signal thread exit */ #define ETH_BRIDGE_INTR_THREAD_EXIT 1 /* Sentinel value to detect initialized file handle */ #define INIT_FD -1 BR/Jaeeun From: Jaeeun Ham Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 11:14 AM To: Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com> Subject: RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, Could you guide me on how to eliminate or reduce tx drop/retry? TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD helped somewhat but it was not cleared packet tx drop. ========[ TX adapter stats ]======== tx_retry: 17499893 tx_packets: 7501716 tx_dropped: 5132458 BR/Jaeeun From: Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com<mailto:jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:40 PM To: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com<mailto:jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com>>; dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com<mailto:jerinj@marvell.com>> Subject: RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi Jaeeun, See my responses inline below. -Jay From: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com<mailto:jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:51 AM To: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com<mailto:jerinj@marvell.com>>; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com<mailto:jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>> Subject: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, There were latency delay when I increase dpdk(20.11.1) core. (one worker core was okay.) When I decrease the TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value(1024 to 32), it was okay It's TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD at lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c. // https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk-stable/tree/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c?h=20.11#n15<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-dff86f66a37f4e0e&q=1&e=9d9b2326-a7ae-405b-bc88-9a28d777c306&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.dpdk.org%2Fdpdk-stable%2Ftree%2Flib%2Flibrte_eventdev%2Frte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c%3Fh%3D20.11%23n15> When TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value was changed from 1024 to 32, the latency test result was fine on 10 cores for low traffic(DL:20Mbps/UL:17kbps). I think that this can make call for rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() more frequently. But, I'm not sure whether this approach can cause worse performance or not. Do you have any opinion about this? [Jay] Yes, it will cause rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() to be called more often. It can lead to lesser batching benefit. Typical performance vs. latency trade-off decision apply here. Similar RDK RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD is patched on DUSG3 from 1024 to smaller value since DPDK 18.11.2: I'm not aware of any side-effect, I think it is needed to have low enough latency even at low traffic rates. For more details see Intel FP 22288<https://footprints.intel.com/MRcgi/MRlogin.pl?DL=22288DA14>. [Jay] Currently, TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD is not a configurable attr. TXA_MAX_NB_TX(128) looks the same as CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE(16384), then is it also should be tuned? [Jay] They both are different attributes. TXA_MAX_NB_TX refers to max number of queues in Tx adapter. CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE refers to event buffer size in Rx BD. --- dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base.orig 2020-01-29 15:05:10.000000000 +0100 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base 2020-01-29 15:11:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -566,9 +566,9 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES=100 CONFIG_RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE=4 CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE=32 -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=128 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=16384 CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_DEBUG=n -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=1024 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=32 --- dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-05 23:46:52.051051000 +0200 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-06 00:50:07.310766255 +0200 @@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ #define RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES 100 #define RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE 4 #define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE 32 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 128 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 1024 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 16384 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 10 #undef RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_MULTI_PKT_EVENT BR/Jaeeun [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 23131 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change 2022-06-25 3:19 ` Jaeeun Ham @ 2022-06-27 6:23 ` Jayatheerthan, Jay 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Jayatheerthan, Jay @ 2022-06-27 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaeeun Ham, dev; +Cc: Jerin Jacob [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6026 bytes --] Hi, From DPDK 21.11, the Rx adapter event buffer size is configurable through API during creation time. Please refer to rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_create_with_params() API in the below link: https://doc.dpdk.org/api/rte__event__eth__rx__adapter_8h.html You could refer to EAL docs on how to use log-level option based on the PMD you are using. -Jay From: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com> Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2022 8:49 AM To: Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com> Subject: RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, Packets seem to be silently discarded in the RX NIC while waiting in the buffer, and it does not happen when I use only one worker core. I think multiple worker cores packet processing would have this problem to handle heavy traffic in parallel. I want to increase buffer size to solve this as below, then is it right to change only modify the number from 4 to 8? I am trying to gather DPDK and PMD driver log such as "--log-level="7" --log-level="pmd.net,7". Could you recommend how to set the log-level string to confirm silent packet drop? dpdk-stable-20.11.1/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.c #define BATCH_SIZE 32 #define BLOCK_CNT_THRESHOLD 10 #define ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE (4*BATCH_SIZE) // e.g. (8*BATCH_SIZE) #define ETH_RX_ADAPTER_SERVICE_NAME_LEN 32 #define ETH_RX_ADAPTER_MEM_NAME_LEN 32 #define RSS_KEY_SIZE 40 /* value written to intr thread pipe to signal thread exit */ #define ETH_BRIDGE_INTR_THREAD_EXIT 1 /* Sentinel value to detect initialized file handle */ #define INIT_FD -1 BR/Jaeeun From: Jaeeun Ham Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2022 11:14 AM To: Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com<mailto:jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>>; dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com<mailto:jerinj@marvell.com>> Subject: RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, Could you guide me on how to eliminate or reduce tx drop/retry? TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD helped somewhat but it was not cleared packet tx drop. ========[ TX adapter stats ]======== tx_retry: 17499893 tx_packets: 7501716 tx_dropped: 5132458 BR/Jaeeun From: Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com<mailto:jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 3:40 PM To: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com<mailto:jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com>>; dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com<mailto:jerinj@marvell.com>> Subject: RE: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi Jaeeun, See my responses inline below. -Jay From: Jaeeun Ham <jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com<mailto:jaeeun.ham@ericsson.com>> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 5:51 AM To: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org> Cc: Jerin Jacob <jerinj@marvell.com<mailto:jerinj@marvell.com>>; Jayatheerthan, Jay <jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com<mailto:jay.jayatheerthan@intel.com>> Subject: ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Hi, There were latency delay when I increase dpdk(20.11.1) core. (one worker core was okay.) When I decrease the TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value(1024 to 32), it was okay It's TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD at lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c. // https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk-stable/tree/lib/librte_eventdev/rte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c?h=20.11#n15<https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501d5122-313273af-454445555731-dff86f66a37f4e0e&q=1&e=9d9b2326-a7ae-405b-bc88-9a28d777c306&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgit.dpdk.org%2Fdpdk-stable%2Ftree%2Flib%2Flibrte_eventdev%2Frte_event_eth_tx_adapter.c%3Fh%3D20.11%23n15> When TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD value was changed from 1024 to 32, the latency test result was fine on 10 cores for low traffic(DL:20Mbps/UL:17kbps). I think that this can make call for rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() more frequently. But, I'm not sure whether this approach can cause worse performance or not. Do you have any opinion about this? [Jay] Yes, it will cause rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush() to be called more often. It can lead to lesser batching benefit. Typical performance vs. latency trade-off decision apply here. Similar RDK RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD is patched on DUSG3 from 1024 to smaller value since DPDK 18.11.2: I'm not aware of any side-effect, I think it is needed to have low enough latency even at low traffic rates. For more details see Intel FP 22288<https://footprints.intel.com/MRcgi/MRlogin.pl?DL=22288DA14>. [Jay] Currently, TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD is not a configurable attr. TXA_MAX_NB_TX(128) looks the same as CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE(16384), then is it also should be tuned? [Jay] They both are different attributes. TXA_MAX_NB_TX refers to max number of queues in Tx adapter. CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE refers to event buffer size in Rx BD. --- dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base.orig 2020-01-29 15:05:10.000000000 +0100 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-18.11/dpdk-stable-18.11.2/config/common_base 2020-01-29 15:11:10.000000000 +0100 @@ -566,9 +566,9 @@ CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES=100 CONFIG_RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE=4 CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE=32 -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=128 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE=16384 CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_DEBUG=n -CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=1024 +CONFIG_RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD=32 --- dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-05 23:46:52.051051000 +0200 +++ dpdk-3pp-swu-dusg3-20.11.3/dpdk-stable-20.11.3/config/rte_config.h 2021-08-06 00:50:07.310766255 +0200 @@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ #define RTE_LIBRTE_BRIDGE_ETH_MAX_CP_ENQ_RETRIES 100 #define RTE_MAX_BRIDGE_ETH_INSTANCE 4 #define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_INTR_RING_SIZE 32 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 128 -#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 1024 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_EVENT_BUFFER_SIZE 16384 +#define RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_FLUSH_THOLD 10 #undef RTE_BRIDGE_ETH_TX_MULTI_PKT_EVENT BR/Jaeeun [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 27274 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-27 6:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <DB7PR07MB4489DB019CC14EBE5D4AC472F3AB9@DB7PR07MB4489.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
2022-06-16 6:39 ` ask for TXA_FLUSH_THRESHOLD change Jayatheerthan, Jay
2022-06-22 2:13 ` Jaeeun Ham
2022-06-25 3:19 ` Jaeeun Ham
2022-06-27 6:23 ` Jayatheerthan, Jay
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).