From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f178.google.com (mail-lj1-f178.google.com [209.85.208.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C5AC1C01 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 23:09:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lj1-f178.google.com with SMTP id f1-v6so7713306ljc.9 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:09:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=asu-edu.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+XyMmtKEe0xTK8WZnpRfdEVXt0/+ttc0IZ2a5lhBBJg=; b=PO9SNgGT7q1csYcE6KKWf9EC1tgeVG1wA6f+NvLph2gDaPfaPA7CLiaI480hv80+t2 WhQeDEs82RaY5XVMy31matGm7efwm0TLvC8SDNmhC1GEbKWS5N3w+Yc1wxTqHbkwoVkL Pmoliea8EkOXnsdillZiGUwTNhQYT3lws5l0sfdiBrfmD4738WBps12g/DYoTGncW9kS yvLYxlzDQdCBG9ZuewYjHX9vITnKJJ6YApR+3t0DPGwAayMKjiUNuZ3A3gtoIESMDVUQ z4lG3H0iG5fQzafoljuODxLrY6rr5Xco50uPHYe5UMcBiGp5zuPKQ4Vtul5iVYdOL8lM qHVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=+XyMmtKEe0xTK8WZnpRfdEVXt0/+ttc0IZ2a5lhBBJg=; b=RgJepblQkji/iPLpWAYGEpP3BFJIPakP44HTvmwOkrI19kDInTZB8tpzFEzHO0+yxI C/HGg0fdkuacldzGYsj713PwftV9c7ACW2HgCJqjAcFNg5cA+pUvC/0sC6bpbFLseMDU gWuOD76KVRLxB5a2MHzLuNVkGIle4PAecuIWCpvJlW2RfTvsJapLnVX1F4K/adya5/OC vv/y18763an4XG/K08h0GOElS1uho2L5UR1OFBjbjBgTw8VkZWdHnI+mEa18cOkox6ak HG0t+T5/+RaCi7yE5k5yz5Q2g4ImoA34eBVb7b/t07vVHNDNSpv3LyORsH+MoKkqwae+ JQfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEIKOtu1yZOcEAVJbGBcfVOdx0CT+9sK8cvQJniv0uDdyX81mzI WDjsmhJqKIKgUl0aUwNo/MW8SLzZdIW8kdJfUxzz14sp57Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdxgIu0Aplvwpr0soOgmPw/ey//3cVs00u9tYRIKYzVGXEeiRnMicAI0NQp4W5mPZeLF5hQbiEqrXi1E7tk6tg= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9bc9:: with SMTP id w9-v6mr8666385ljj.33.1532034591783; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:09:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a2e:5f96:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:09:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Sungho Hong Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 14:09:11 -0700 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-users] Bad IO-latency when sending one rte_mbuf at a time 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: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 21:09:52 -0000 Hello, I am testing single round-trip latency of a single message using DPDK and POSIX. The round-trip latency that I am talking about is that I send one message in other words rte_mbuf *m[1] from client to server, and the server echos back to the client . I have tested this same thing on both POSIX and DPDK, and DPDK performance is really bad when I do this. for example when using POSIX the total round-trip latency is 1275.666667 usec while when I use DPDK the total round-trip latency is 61322 In the past, I have only tested DPDK based on run-time on sending a bulk of data, for example 10 Gigabyte of files, in that case, I remember that DPDK outperforms POSIX. I believe that I am using the DPDK in the wrong way, or missing something very critical. the test cases that I have built can be viewed here. https://github.com/SungHoHong2/Ceph-Experiment/tree/master/DPDK-FUSE/FUSE-2nd Would it be possible to know how I can improve the performance of a round-trip latency of a single message? (Or is this not ideal for DPDK?) Best Sungho Hong