From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-f169.google.com (mail-qt1-f169.google.com [209.85.160.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C622C2B for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 08:53:14 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt1-f169.google.com with SMTP id d14-v6so5904807qto.4 for ; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:53:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MACNMVpbkko1aqrGXSavfHnxQmHNGHrx8PcsS5Eauvc=; b=eOvvymhOyGdbxyVcE9Ol24Tk1ExeaEXtBY/VUaALXXSu5XHmdE/QdzWQX7MIxKMyhW 2cjTNNOOwM8tLotLmyNdrbzHIobHXzdHqopC4V2NgoAZnutOlfghfJAhwoVocve+7iMJ ThiPVhEzcc1Rf/ugY8TqmxBTSxKzMkRkKm37quzFfcphC3SpG6+wgPWMPcdpK8Y3ouPj DRW3RiuYPaVS//6q70oO24TYvd5IFAWoevAY4AxQ7ku6atchme/NDcLsTVUYqLrkZDbz 29LbkbGY25HGovt5kOh7b9cdz9tVhplK9TMlRk3tg3aRL5qlglFNy4wooJBb8pZizYRI LemA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MACNMVpbkko1aqrGXSavfHnxQmHNGHrx8PcsS5Eauvc=; b=tLwmCpFnyf1diE8OBKLNvk3hcmARCAAwVKUrpfemzNi2dYJcfwmST3n02MqLFIU78q oUVVh3pGtXrDxZSEu5LN981GaNRr1qLOzv+AKhG7S2l5U9uXGcDLAojCgqgMY/dKC2iB O/r0c9r9IkFFRp0EubK6yxQXTwSCtUVWw1Dy0Tn7tKZ/xfSsVeabQz8NXRWuphJFYJcX VHx/yGR6NL2BJ1gAIMX+NSo0yWsVuRLSk3Y/RLc461KGD4I/kxXVa6eL1trRW64GEL82 ccddnqfdfgznasA6Ozh5cOFwAnniGH3NuMUCEd1GNABw8RYMlJOSkillESCp/b36p9bk Xv2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJ1/VvpUGTlT1av4Ob1HIYYmZbzb2nUOS4el+LA1Oy1oc0LzGJ7 /3Lv0iI1f3W6sTQEvpW2lK5/E1dzycPsdxQN4B4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5ci38HNYQz/Tgtm/Gt/j5DBiMPo3lDmy/X3h4z+dHKfUIVv+kt0AdGoiJnZQmWAUr8VBqBzgAN8+7GMm6BMzPA= X-Received: by 2002:aed:22bb:: with SMTP id p56-v6mr8686805qtc.137.1540713193488; Sun, 28 Oct 2018 00:53:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Vincenzo Maffione Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 08:53:03 +0100 Message-ID: To: maverickjin88@gmail.com Cc: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 05:58:14 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Why DPDK latency is high when sending message in interval? X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 07:53:14 -0000 Hi, How are you wating for the 100us interval? If you use sleep primitives like usleep() or nanosleep() your delay is likely due to the nanosleep() default timerslack, or deep C-states enabled, or frequency scaling, etc. This would be completely unrelated to DPDK. Cheers, Vincenzo Il giorno dom 28 ott 2018 alle ore 01:36 Sungho Hong < maverickjin88@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hello DPDK experts, > > I'am testing the performance of DPDK not on high speed polling > but sending each packet with 100 microsecond interval. > > As same as the POSIX, DPDK performance degrades into 90 ~ 100 microsecond > round-trip latency per 4KB message. > > Is there a way to improve the performance, when I am expecting to send the > packet on 100 microsecond interval? > > And is there an explanation of the slowdown of DPDK when I am sending the > packet on 100 microsecond interval? > > Any insights on this issue will be highly appreciated.. > Thanks > -- Vincenzo