From: "Rong, Leyi" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com>,
Jerin Jacob <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
David Marchand <email@example.com>
Cc: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>,
"Zhang, Qi Z" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"Richardson, Bruce" <email@example.com>,
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: enable multiple Tx queues on a lcore
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 05:38:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <SN6PR11MB2621DF0078FE8BBBDF555794EC629@SN6PR11MB2621.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2021 1:23 AM
> To: Jerin Jacob <firstname.lastname@example.org>; David Marchand
> <email@example.com>; Rong, Leyi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com; Zhang, Qi Z <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Richardson, Bruce
> <email@example.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: enable multiple Tx queues on
> a lcore
> 05/11/2020 10:24, Rong, Leyi:
> > From: Jerin Jacob <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 2:34 PM Rong, Leyi <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > From: David Marchand <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 9:34 AM Rong, Leyi <email@example.com>
> > > > > > As there always has thoughput limit for per queue, on some
> > > > > > performance test case by using l3fwd, the result will limited
> > > > > > by the per queue thoughput limit. With multiple Tx queue
> > > > > > enabled, the per queue thoughput limit can be eliminated if
> > > > > > the CPU core is not the bottleneck.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah interesting.
> > > > > Which nic has such limitations?
> > > > > How much of an improvement can be expected from this?
> > > >
> > > > The initial found was on XXV710 25Gb NIC, but suppose such issue
> > > > can happen on more NICs as the high-end CPU per core boundary is
> > > > higher than many NICs(except 100Gb and above) per queue performance
> > > > The improvement can be about 1.8X with that case@1t2q.
> > >
> > > As far as I understand, the Current l3fwd Tx queue creation is like this:
> > > If the app has N cores and M ports then l3fwd creates, N x M Tx
> > > queues in total, What will be new values based on this patch?
> Thank you Jerin for providing some info missing in the description of the patch.
> > Hi Jacob,
> > Total queues number equals to queues per port multiply port number.
> > Just take #l3fwd -l 5,6 -n 6 -- -p 0x3 --config
> > '(0,0,5),(0,1,5),(1,0,6),(1,1,6)' as example, With this patch appied,
> > totally 2x2=4 tx queues can be polled, while only
> > 1x2=2 tx queues can be used before.
> It does not reply above question with N x M.
> > > Does this patch has any regression in case the NIC queues able to
> > > cope up with the throughput limit from CPU.
> > Regression test relevant with l3fwd passed with this patch, no obvious
> > result drop on other cases.
> It does not reply the general question for all drivers you did not test.
> As you probably noticed, this patch is blocked for months because it is not
> properly explained.
This patch can be abandoned after synced with Konstantin months ago. And update the state to superseded on patchwork, Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-25 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-04 7:28 Leyi Rong
2020-11-04 8:14 ` David Marchand
2020-11-04 8:34 ` Rong, Leyi
2020-11-04 8:43 ` David Marchand
2020-11-04 9:04 ` Rong, Leyi
2020-11-05 7:14 ` Jerin Jacob
2020-11-05 9:24 ` Rong, Leyi
2021-03-24 17:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-25 5:38 ` Rong, Leyi [this message]
2021-03-25 8:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-11-02 8:12 Leyi Rong
2020-11-02 8:44 ` David Marchand
2020-11-02 5:29 Leyi Rong
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).