From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F17FAB7 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:03:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id k127so10947032vke.0 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:03:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Fe4j9xPO0GPDNx/0vXLZO/xWXiDVsW/3O1Yj2M0VRXU=; b=cvHIL58vCmCLoXD9qOvl/09nsUmPnkZ2dj+FSPxIkjjQOgiclDbF0zi8XKYEh1GdED NUEGzxP3T3tANsks4N5j4ZOHo/GtSmqp3nToftov56rB6q1EF+nOfuPBqa/PSoC6nu00 uiCJwVMroxpER25zXB087XSAKaDsINLguplnhhnvFSe029lLOw6zcyVxw1KoJvvkkkyn k/ARhlKzclMrFOe99lbIYyacUqFMxaApa0MTpP5B9LLSc6TXyDmWUCms8XBUsZzk3xOA lHQmqlfHsmUyvMUt7WTAghOBkgkVG1GkKtIJDtwAp4k4YzQDXwQuBWjcwX+PBxCqKg+Q Qtag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Fe4j9xPO0GPDNx/0vXLZO/xWXiDVsW/3O1Yj2M0VRXU=; b=Hge3sb94wtkPdaEp34N+pmff7wsrwAmbACUrVUy8GL7dH+Yz5S6kqQ0gyw7GkwqNjP JOEPlRN59aOjX5PaM7N5Z4ZmcaAq0GkZG5VB8t/3BuG1aAmmUC/unV8WPBZVEKgo07ks zGPvgy0m+OEaeMenVXkZhJEWYiCHi4FVHaf5MB20WD/fv1jPQQXbIm4ky12JvFWRdasp JrHOTe5iwdfByklcFb00CZDsLtklNZBojrgKyPOaybcx9s5pBx2prZ+h8lpKTHv9KY0L 6u4EJp0WYNlrXp2rnIidjZpzqQI0z/Q85r+uwuRZDERajs+0mmmeKGcq/DB0T5OkWcY0 4qpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXK7+FcNeQpqmsN0/DyLroWJYPxopfcxLBgIMVC90Roup+5KRxxT1cBTy4MpdGr8KC7D62fGvH5AcDZNBQ== X-Received: by 10.31.70.194 with SMTP id t185mr1881427vka.39.1484755390198; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:03:10 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.136.7 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:03:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Pavel Shirshov Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:03:09 -0800 Message-ID: To: maruko.kwok@gmail.com Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] what is the average latency you get for io forwarding from dpdk? 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:03:11 -0000 Hi Maruko, I'd say that dpdk is not about minimal latency, but about maximum flexibility and development speed. dpdk is not ASIC. ASIC, FPGA, anything not soft related will give you better latency time. So if you are looking for minimal and predictable latency I suspect you need to think about other options. On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Marco Kwok wrote: > Hello all, > > I wonder if anyone could get a relative low latency from dpdk on 1gb link. > > When using testpmd, an packet of 150 bytes is sent, packet is received by > the port and loopback to the sender. > I usually could get 50us for io forward. Sometime it can be as fast as 3us. > However it is too slow to be used for switching application. > > My test platform is on a intel NUC NUC5I5RYH, which has i5 5250U 1.6GHz, > 16GB DDR3 and i218-V network chip. dpdk 16.07.2 > > > I have done the following things try to get a better latency with no luck: > -setup 1G hugepages > -disable cpu frequency scaling to make sure cpu runs at max speed of 2.7GHz > -isolate a cpu core from kernel task scheduler by isolcpus > -setting the burst size of testpmd to 1 > > Guys, I really want your input. I don't need high throughput but low > latency. Does anyone of you have been able to achieve a lower latency with > dpdk? I don't see the advantage I have taken from dpdk now. > > Best, > Mark