From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8971FE5 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:57:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2015 07:57:40 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,373,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="705566257" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 May 2015 07:57:39 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.246]) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.15.5]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 5 May 2015 15:56:57 +0100 From: "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" To: Paul Emmerich Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0 Thread-Index: AQHQgFHZ4mseU3xXgkWntFvhqktdlJ1gcNwAgACZkhCAAFcpAIAA5qpw///4zYCAC0JJoA== Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 14:56:56 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de> <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0 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, 05 May 2015 14:57:41 -0000 Hi Paul, > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Emmerich [mailto:emmericp@net.in.tum.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:48 PM > To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo > Cc: Pavel Odintsov; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0 >=20 > Hi, >=20 >=20 > De Lara Guarch, Pablo : > > Could you tell me which changes you made here? I see you are using > simple tx code path on 1.8.0, > > but with the default values, you should be using vector tx, > > unless you have changed anything in the tx configuration. >=20 > sorry, I might have written that down wrong or read the output wrong. > I did not modify the l2fwd example. >=20 >=20 > > So, just for clarification, > > for l2fwd you used E3-1230 v2 (Ivy Bridge), at 1.6 GHz or 3.3 GHz? >=20 > At 1.6 GHz as it is simply too fast at 3.3 GHz ;) >=20 >=20 > I'll probably write a minimal example that shows my > problem with tx only sometime next week. > I just used the l2fwd example to illustrate my point > with a 'builtin' example. Thanks for the clarification. I tested it on Ivy Bridge as well, and I coul= d not reproduce the issue. Make sure that you use vector rx/tx anyway, to get best performance=20 (you should be seeing better performance, since l2fwd in 1.8/2.0 uses both = vector rx/tx). Thanks, Pablo >=20 > Paul