From: Anthony Hart <ahart@domainhart.com>
To: users@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-users] eventdev performance
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 15:03:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3338AA01-BB97-494F-B39C-6A510D085C79@domainhart.com> (raw)
I’ve been doing some performance measurements with the eventdev_pipeline example application (to see how the eventdev library performs - dpdk 18.05) and I’m looking for some help in determining where the bottlenecks are in my testing.
I have 1 Rx, 1 Tx, 1 Scheduler and N worker cores (1 sw_event0 device). In this configuration performance tops out with 3 workers (6 cores total) and adding more workers actually causes a reduction in throughput. In my setup this is about 12Mpps. The same setup running testpmd will reach >25Mpps using only 1 core.
This is the eventdev command line.
eventdev_pipeline -l 0,1-6 -w0000:02:00.0 --vdev event_sw0 -- -r2 -t4 -e8 -w70 -s1 -n0 -c128 -W0 -D
This is the tested command line.
testpmd -w0000:02:00.0 -l 0,1 -- -i --nb-core 1 --numa --rxq 1 --txq 1 --port-topology=loop
I’m guessing that its either the RX or Sched that’s the bottleneck in my eventdev_pipeline setup.
So I first tried to use 2 cores for RX (-r6), performance went down. It seems that configuring 2 RX cores still only sets up 1 h/w receive ring and access to that one ring is alternated between the two cores? So that doesn’t help.
Next, I could use 2 scheduler cores, but how does that work, do they again alternate? In any case throughput is reduced by 50% in that test.
thanks for any insights,
tony
next reply other threads:[~2018-08-05 19:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-05 19:03 Anthony Hart [this message]
2018-08-07 8:34 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2018-08-09 15:56 ` Anthony Hart
2018-08-15 16:04 ` Van Haaren, Harry
2018-08-20 16:05 ` Anthony Hart
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3338AA01-BB97-494F-B39C-6A510D085C79@domainhart.com \
--to=ahart@domainhart.com \
--cc=users@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).