From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5C38A00C2; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:55:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C1094068B; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:55:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4ECF40141; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:55:25 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1646751326; x=1678287326; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ks3WJ457ElrITa4T55lJW0VMsgqkb9xgeLOhWry8+7M=; b=jNbp5dWTpaJYbtn7jeJWJaSRpsgaE3Wqer1oiYElTPyn7UdsdxzXav/L IrVArqgcQO1W3PmBDMb1Q73LMRQnL3NuvlJMZOG+iZpxb3ffUeNKJGqQZ 2JBvG+sg72PfpmfpuEZlJbX41Px65j0SRsSOi4eMwQboGBZS0c6R9JrVL 3LBHjCMvs2YJp8TBXzc7qYs/Ct+ibXSYs3lE4DixdkQHQGCqMZUefrJDE t8KT/fFFZQFQ6GNMKlo7qi9PtAUOIyDNtlJVDdxCGYN3otYkA6Br94y50 DcvoxouBoesnNB9PWkzMDx9dJB2oSj1dBzpY9SIvkF1H1tlb9fzThkC5v Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10279"; a="242139307" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,165,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="242139307" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2022 06:55:24 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,165,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="553645951" Received: from irsmsx606.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.146.139]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Mar 2022 06:55:23 -0800 Received: from shsmsx601.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.109.6.141) by IRSMSX606.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.146.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 14:55:21 +0000 Received: from shsmsx601.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.141]) by SHSMSX601.ccr.corp.intel.com ([10.109.6.141]) with mapi id 15.01.2308.021; Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:55:18 +0800 From: "Tu, Lijuan" To: "Richardson, Bruce" , Honnappa Nagarahalli CC: "dev@dpdk.org" , "juraj.linkes@pantheon.tech" , "ohilyard@iol.unh.edu" , "david.marchand@redhat.com" , "thomas@monjalon.net" , "Hunt, David" , "ruifeng.wang@arm.com" , "nd@arm.com" , "Pattan, Reshma" , "stable@dpdk.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH] examples/distributor: one Tx queue is enough Thread-Topic: [PATCH] examples/distributor: one Tx queue is enough Thread-Index: AQHYMnRHBmUpR0cHBk2oxAVkbGIUkqy0u7qAgADUCsA= Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 14:55:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20220307223946.578201-1-honnappa.nagarahalli@arm.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: dlp-reaction: no-action dlp-version: 11.6.401.20 dlp-product: dlpe-windows x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.36] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org > Do we know why DTS is making this change? Does having more TX queues than > necessary cause problems? DTS is to reduce tx queues to enable many workers for performance testing. Distributor application creates one Tx queue per core, and total (lcore-1) = queues,=20 Which make it only 1 worker, but it only use a single queue to transmit.=20 That's not make sense, so we request to fix it.