From: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>
To: Harsh Patel <thadodaharsh10@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Kyle Larose <eomereadig@gmail.com>,
"users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Query on handling packets
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:30:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <72A7DD4D-35FD-4247-805D-E9A736B1C9B6@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA0iYrHyLtO3XLXMq-aeVhgJhns0+ErfuhEeDSNDi4cFVBcZmw@mail.gmail.com>
> On Dec 29, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Harsh Patel <thadodaharsh10@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> As suggested, we tried profiling the application using Intel VTune Amplifier. We aren't sure how to use these results, so we are attaching them to this email.
>
> The things we understood were 'Top Hotspots' and 'Effective CPU utilization'. Following are some of our understandings:
>
> Top Hotspots
>
> Function Module CPU Time
> rte_delay_us_block librte_eal.so.6.1 15.042s
> eth_em_recv_pkts librte_pmd_e1000.so 9.544s
> ns3::DpdkNetDevice::Read libns3.28.1-fd-net-device-debug.so 3.522s
> ns3::DpdkNetDeviceReader::DoRead libns3.28.1-fd-net-device-debug.so 2.470s
> rte_eth_rx_burst libns3.28.1-fd-net-device-debug.so 2.456s
> [Others] 6.656s
>
> We knew about other methods except `rte_delay_us_block`. So we investigated the callers of this method:
>
> Callers Effective Time Spin Time Overhead Time Effective Time Spin Time Overhead Time Wait Time: Total Wait Time: Self
> e1000_enable_ulp_lpt_lp 45.6% 0.0% 0.0% 6.860s 0usec 0usec
> e1000_write_phy_reg_mdic 32.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.916s 0usec 0usec
> e1000_read_phy_reg_mdic 19.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.922s 0usec 0usec
> e1000_reset_hw_ich8lan 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.143s 0usec 0usec
> eth_em_link_update 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.100s 0usec 0usec
> e1000_post_phy_reset_ich8lan.part.18 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.064s 0usec 0usec
> e1000_get_cfg_done_generic 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.037s 0usec 0usec
>
> We lack sufficient knowledge to investigate more than this.
>
> Effective CPU utilization
>
> Interestingly, the effective CPU utilization was 20.8% (0.832 out of 4 logical CPUs). We thought this is less. So we compared this with the raw-socket version of the code, which was even less, 8.0% (0.318 out of 4 logical CPUs), and even then it is performing way better.
>
> It would be helpful if you give us insights on how to use these results or point us to some resources to do so.
>
> Thank you
>
BTW, I was able to build ns3 with DPDK 18.11 it required a couple changes in the DPDK init code in ns3 plus one hack in rte_mbuf.h file.
I did have a problem including rte_mbuf.h file into your code. It appears the g++ compiler did not like referencing the struct rte_mbuf_sched inside the rte_mbuf structure. The rte_mbuf_sched was inside the big union as a hack I moved the struct outside of the rte_mbuf structure and replaced the struct in the union with ’struct rte_mbuf_sched sched;', but I am guessing you are missing some compiler options in your build system as DPDK builds just fine without that hack.
The next place was the rxmode and the txq_flags. The rxmode structure has changed and I commented out the inits in ns3 and then commented out the txq_flags init code as these are now the defaults.
Regards,
Keith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-30 0:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-08 8:24 Harsh Patel
2018-11-08 8:56 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-08 16:58 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-08 17:43 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-09 10:09 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-09 21:26 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-10 6:17 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-11 19:45 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-13 2:25 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-13 13:47 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-14 13:54 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-14 15:02 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-14 15:04 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-14 15:15 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-17 10:22 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-17 22:05 ` Kyle Larose
2018-11-19 13:49 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-22 15:54 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-24 15:43 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-24 15:48 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-24 16:01 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-11-25 4:35 ` Stephen Hemminger
2018-11-30 9:02 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-30 10:24 ` Harsh Patel
2018-11-30 15:54 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-12-03 9:37 ` Harsh Patel
2018-12-14 17:41 ` Harsh Patel
2018-12-14 18:06 ` Wiles, Keith
[not found] ` <CAA0iYrHyLtO3XLXMq-aeVhgJhns0+ErfuhEeDSNDi4cFVBcZmw@mail.gmail.com>
2018-12-30 0:19 ` Wiles, Keith
2018-12-30 0:30 ` Wiles, Keith [this message]
2019-01-03 18:12 ` Harsh Patel
2019-01-03 22:43 ` Wiles, Keith
2019-01-04 5:57 ` Harsh Patel
2019-01-16 13:55 ` Harsh Patel
2019-01-30 23:36 ` Harsh Patel
2019-01-31 16:58 ` Wiles, Keith
2019-02-05 6:37 ` Harsh Patel
2019-02-05 13:03 ` Wiles, Keith
2019-02-05 14:00 ` Harsh Patel
2019-02-05 14:12 ` Wiles, Keith
2019-02-05 14:22 ` Harsh Patel
2019-02-05 14:27 ` Wiles, Keith
2019-02-05 14:33 ` Harsh Patel
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=72A7DD4D-35FD-4247-805D-E9A736B1C9B6@intel.com \
--to=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=eomereadig@gmail.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thadodaharsh10@gmail.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).