From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-eopbgr20046.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.46])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81FE4C8F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:48:27 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector1; 
 h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;
 bh=5enrCzpzEVpOzPiVh+/kUpXjqiA5rjWoOOjEiK7H/0A=;
 b=G6YPqLssYjk+tMwAC4/A1rtkllE/yMCU2rFx92nVnFSyBKuDLku+2nlbgjLj65KHIUSNqG0fMLFfs7ZUa1bsuD8BJYRGe26lWhvUpGIvxFaEi7thg7c9SoGLDmHPrOrWTn+Jj0hMTfsuSFRP3MU/UE96aGuGNJzzSCaDi5slCn0=
Received: from VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.177.56.80) by
 VI1PR04MB5261.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.177.51.214) with Microsoft SMTP
 Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 15.20.1792.18; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:25 +0000
Received: from VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com
 ([fe80::48ee:dfc2:13c2:2f96]) by VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com
 ([fe80::48ee:dfc2:13c2:2f96%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.018; Mon, 15 Apr 2019
 06:48:24 +0000
From: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
To: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
CC: nd <nd@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool
 per	port
Thread-Index: AdTzVqP8Li6X0oq3QB+FOHfNwOVcLw==
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:22 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:13 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1PR04MB46883416218659A038683249902B0@VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is )
 smtp.mailfrom=shreyansh.jain@nxp.com; 
x-originating-ip: [92.120.1.69]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f802db28-b78a-4b48-1ec0-08d6c16e5bbf
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0;
 RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600140)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020);
 SRVR:VI1PR04MB5261; 
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR04MB5261:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR04MB52619A6C73130C4A9F9B7363902B0@VI1PR04MB5261.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 000800954F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;
 SFS:(10009020)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(186003)(478600001)(81156014)(14454004)(44832011)(81166006)(4326008)(74316002)(6246003)(66066001)(305945005)(5660300002)(2501003)(52536014)(8936002)(476003)(6506007)(2906002)(3846002)(6116002)(486006)(26005)(102836004)(7736002)(229853002)(99286004)(86362001)(68736007)(14444005)(53936002)(33656002)(6436002)(97736004)(25786009)(7696005)(110136005)(54906003)(316002)(105586002)(55016002)(9686003)(256004)(71200400001)(71190400001)(106356001);
 DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR04MB5261;
 H:VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
 PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; 
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: MDf8KZDEEHB/GGzdr8fcMcVOtapFOlGjxj7mBCyt678Qi+9Meb6A6HuFFSbwnp+yRVVlb5TuIkHTFPhj00VIVy8VFLCF/Ddq6tmjvolW3oymE/1N3tk/MagkGeFy1z2qboUx/tKj1O+L4Pn93+X13poTYVj9vEguxNN6jATdS8lnw85YQH74lw19gn5aY1vC66ESHkLaa1Klul1GzOob/j5C5Mne/dkffQRuUZ9/Efm3OOTG+0FUhGR7rmTgrxcDxMLlIT8JWhL9H3IkR24EZzT0k+OmH5JFGVDgJZtAS8hw/P/Q5a+JhOwcqSkE8UI7VXfMslLeLcNiK8gCAt9WGbc5JEJ40njZoVaQDoqS2i329/adag7Dk28LmizwtBxEOLdpsXs3aoqJVOVTn07GdJT6XS09fX4dUB0o05n4AMg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f802db28-b78a-4b48-1ec0-08d6c16e5bbf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Apr 2019 06:48:23.9781 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR04MB5261
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool
 per	port
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:27 -0000

Hi Ruifeng,

[...]

> >
> > For hardware backed pools, hardware access and exclusion are
> expensive. By
> > segregating pool/port/lcores it is possible to attain a conflict free
> path. This is
> > the use-case this patch targets.
> > And anyways, this is an optional feature.
> >
> > > Konstantin
> > >
> > > > In dual core test, both modes had nearly same performance.
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > >
> > > > My setup only has two ports which is limited.
> > > > Just want to know the per-port-pool mode has more performance gain
> > > when many ports are bound to  different cores?
> >
> > Yes, though not necessarily *many* - in my case, I had 4 ports and
> even then
> > about ~10% improvement was directly visible. I increased the port
> count and
> > I was able to touch about ~15%. I did pin each port to a separate
> core, though.
> > But again, important point is that without this feature enabled, I
> didn't see
> > any drop in performance. Did you observe any drop?
> >
>=20
> No, no drop without the feature enabled in my test.

So, in case this is an optional feature, it should be fine, right?
(Obviously, assuming that my logical implementation is correct)

At my end also, I saw no drop in performance without this feature (Default)=
 and a decent increase with this (with separate port-core combination) on N=
XP platform.

[...]

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E24A00E6
	for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:48:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8757CDA;
	Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:48:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-eopbgr20046.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.46])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81FE4C8F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 08:48:27 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nxp.com; s=selector1; 
 h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck;
 bh=5enrCzpzEVpOzPiVh+/kUpXjqiA5rjWoOOjEiK7H/0A=;
 b=G6YPqLssYjk+tMwAC4/A1rtkllE/yMCU2rFx92nVnFSyBKuDLku+2nlbgjLj65KHIUSNqG0fMLFfs7ZUa1bsuD8BJYRGe26lWhvUpGIvxFaEi7thg7c9SoGLDmHPrOrWTn+Jj0hMTfsuSFRP3MU/UE96aGuGNJzzSCaDi5slCn0=
Received: from VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.177.56.80) by
 VI1PR04MB5261.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com (20.177.51.214) with Microsoft SMTP
 Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
 15.20.1792.18; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:25 +0000
Received: from VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com
 ([fe80::48ee:dfc2:13c2:2f96]) by VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com
 ([fe80::48ee:dfc2:13c2:2f96%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1792.018; Mon, 15 Apr 2019
 06:48:24 +0000
From: Shreyansh Jain <shreyansh.jain@nxp.com>
To: "Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China)" <Ruifeng.Wang@arm.com>, "Ananyev,
 Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
CC: nd <nd@arm.com>, nd <nd@arm.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool
 per	port
Thread-Index: AdTzVqP8Li6X0oq3QB+FOHfNwOVcLw==
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:22 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 06:48:13 +0000
Message-ID:
 <VI1PR04MB46883416218659A038683249902B0@VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is )
 smtp.mailfrom=shreyansh.jain@nxp.com; 
x-originating-ip: [92.120.1.69]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f802db28-b78a-4b48-1ec0-08d6c16e5bbf
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0;
 RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600140)(711020)(4605104)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020);
 SRVR:VI1PR04MB5261; 
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR04MB5261:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VI1PR04MB52619A6C73130C4A9F9B7363902B0@VI1PR04MB5261.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-prvs: 000800954F
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;
 SFS:(10009020)(396003)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(366004)(136003)(199004)(189003)(186003)(478600001)(81156014)(14454004)(44832011)(81166006)(4326008)(74316002)(6246003)(66066001)(305945005)(5660300002)(2501003)(52536014)(8936002)(476003)(6506007)(2906002)(3846002)(6116002)(486006)(26005)(102836004)(7736002)(229853002)(99286004)(86362001)(68736007)(14444005)(53936002)(33656002)(6436002)(97736004)(25786009)(7696005)(110136005)(54906003)(316002)(105586002)(55016002)(9686003)(256004)(71200400001)(71190400001)(106356001);
 DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR04MB5261;
 H:VI1PR04MB4688.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
 PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; 
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: MDf8KZDEEHB/GGzdr8fcMcVOtapFOlGjxj7mBCyt678Qi+9Meb6A6HuFFSbwnp+yRVVlb5TuIkHTFPhj00VIVy8VFLCF/Ddq6tmjvolW3oymE/1N3tk/MagkGeFy1z2qboUx/tKj1O+L4Pn93+X13poTYVj9vEguxNN6jATdS8lnw85YQH74lw19gn5aY1vC66ESHkLaa1Klul1GzOob/j5C5Mne/dkffQRuUZ9/Efm3OOTG+0FUhGR7rmTgrxcDxMLlIT8JWhL9H3IkR24EZzT0k+OmH5JFGVDgJZtAS8hw/P/Q5a+JhOwcqSkE8UI7VXfMslLeLcNiK8gCAt9WGbc5JEJ40njZoVaQDoqS2i329/adag7Dk28LmizwtBxEOLdpsXs3aoqJVOVTn07GdJT6XS09fX4dUB0o05n4AMg=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: nxp.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f802db28-b78a-4b48-1ec0-08d6c16e5bbf
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Apr 2019 06:48:23.9781 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR04MB5261
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer pool
 per	port
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Message-ID: <20190415064822.ddRuuzsK28OlqUx84hzLZJM-WoWyzkFDup-rbwaCqho@z>

Hi Ruifeng,

[...]

> >
> > For hardware backed pools, hardware access and exclusion are
> expensive. By
> > segregating pool/port/lcores it is possible to attain a conflict free
> path. This is
> > the use-case this patch targets.
> > And anyways, this is an optional feature.
> >
> > > Konstantin
> > >
> > > > In dual core test, both modes had nearly same performance.
> >
> > OK
> >
> > > >
> > > > My setup only has two ports which is limited.
> > > > Just want to know the per-port-pool mode has more performance gain
> > > when many ports are bound to  different cores?
> >
> > Yes, though not necessarily *many* - in my case, I had 4 ports and
> even then
> > about ~10% improvement was directly visible. I increased the port
> count and
> > I was able to touch about ~15%. I did pin each port to a separate
> core, though.
> > But again, important point is that without this feature enabled, I
> didn't see
> > any drop in performance. Did you observe any drop?
> >
>=20
> No, no drop without the feature enabled in my test.

So, in case this is an optional feature, it should be fine, right?
(Obviously, assuming that my logical implementation is correct)

At my end also, I saw no drop in performance without this feature (Default)=
 and a decent increase with this (with separate port-core combination) on N=
XP platform.

[...]