From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7041A00C3; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:04:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34067426D3; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:04:39 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF85340042 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 20 Jan 2022 10:04:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1642669477; x=1674205477; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=69TYadB9SIHwJ6AhE15Mf6ytrnGzjsQ3X/XzeON/qWw=; b=S8kAY1mvJrR7KUxHDhojH5WrE+K2eo8KF8x6j6XU1Ir+I/QOiiTgm4y6 xfF6zsCFkN1YwCbbiGiG7Ud1kjRQxgQKCHxUlvaR91ZNZYW+apW3W6rWM XnYEgzcefdjaKQrbnPS8izkgcS8lpbPBeV+yBccntC+6W16dpCeTD4k0B iBE3jKBiZzEZ1ns7h3F4ynZK4Z2oJgIjQBk2ZpZQssnliNMJICCuPGYxy MjYi+BXI65A7b+FURlDMmeep6H8BajYi5AXnLt/P6wLEy51N0xzy4gPLA xNtHiwQyAWCigy7DPZlq5LpeQOo6cKmAeqZmu4nd452rWCXMlIrhc1sdo g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10232"; a="242869384" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,302,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="242869384" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jan 2022 01:04:35 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.88,302,1635231600"; d="scan'208";a="694127155" Received: from bricha3-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.252.29.19]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Jan 2022 01:04:34 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:04:31 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> To: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozlyuk@nvidia.com> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] app/test: add allocator performance benchmark Message-ID: <YeklnzmnEzLGFMRw@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20211230143744.3550098-1-dkozlyuk@nvidia.com> <20220117080801.481568-1-dkozlyuk@nvidia.com> <20220117080801.481568-3-dkozlyuk@nvidia.com> <YeWPnRxq1Nvmzf9R@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <YeWQcZ0azt3fGtpK@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <BN8PR12MB2899B9D08D2A2A599648C9E8B9599@BN8PR12MB2899.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <BN8PR12MB2899B9D08D2A2A599648C9E8B9599@BN8PR12MB2899.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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 On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 09:12:35PM +0000, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > > From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> > > [...] > > > What is the expected running time of this test? When I tried it out > > on my > > > machine it appears to hang after the following output: > > > [...] > > It always runs within 50 seconds on my machine (E5-1650 v3 @ 3.50GHz). > Judging by the output, it runs faster than yours > (203 vs 811 total microseconds in 1M allocation case): > > USER1: Reference: memset > USER1: Result: 14.557848.3 GiB/s <=> 67.08 us/MiB > USER1: > USER1: Performance: rte_malloc > USER1: Size (B) Runs Alloc (us) Free (us) Total (us) memset (us) > USER1: 64 10000 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.01 > USER1: 128 10000 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.01 > USER1: 1024 10000 0.12 0.09 0.21 0.11 > USER1: 4096 10000 0.15 0.40 0.55 0.27 > USER1: 65536 10000 0.16 4.37 4.53 4.25 > USER1: 1048576 10000 73.85 129.23 203.07 67.26 > USER1: 2097152 7154 148.98 259.42 408.39 134.34 > USER1: 4194304 3570 298.28 519.76 818.04 268.65 > USER1: 16777216 882 1206.85 2093.46 3300.30 1074.25 > USER1: 1073741824 6 188765.01 206544.04 395309.06 68739.83 > [...] > > Note that to see --huge-unlink effect you must run it twice: > the first run creates and leaves the files, the second reuses them. My run seems to hang when doing the 2M size tests, which I also notice is the first run above where the number of runs is not 10000. What is the termination condition for each of the runs, and is that something that could cause hangs on slower machines? /Bruce