From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 144EBA00BE for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:08:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F451DD61; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:08:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.uniroma2.it (smtp.uniroma2.it [160.80.6.16]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35071DD5C for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:08:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it (smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it [160.80.5.46]) by smtp-2015.uniroma2.it (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8) with ESMTP id 067B8Uv9006967 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:08:35 +0200 Received: from mail-wm1-f53.google.com (mail-wm1-f53.google.com [209.85.128.53]) by smtpauth-2019-1.uniroma2.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7774E122917 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:08:25 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniroma2.it; s=ed201904; t=1594120105; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to: references; bh=qcm371zD9XqbfZ8N8VUKkd9zFafJBLrbesO/YM24P2M=; b=g0IB+mcBlBpZt2bmI0N+0GioLSE7MFrWtLuC6alltwHWJAVUGSWat4ZnN6I57nEY2lEu/k TAgse6XcDfciuoAQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uniroma2.it; s=rsa201904; t=1594120105; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to: references; bh=qcm371zD9XqbfZ8N8VUKkd9zFafJBLrbesO/YM24P2M=; b=dT83B1957+d5IYlPow1jXzn6jqcfxFbhHrlRj3esTIx12Yq5T4Nc7EBnz2rT0FAZqrLxTk +JyouiqiNgR2r/7WSkQzizPSlgVYwrHwHrAVc0LFNlDCSKDK85HeGMo5n4Zeu0awFNlCR+ UKzuwinesyWEitlsi7LUm3T7j7KZVnxEqGoRjFJkFRF+ofpwN2uyel3I/cfc2E9cm06VAD sIFXVJNive4pYcP7cpOoGcf09XVidk3un9aRKUhnRn9yFssu5x456bmvNmpHn/himGcRnS NOS+46YAipuRjyUuXyWdugk2G6oHsbEcaFAREFoX5n6M8Pr1SNJy1kgdd3eLfw== Received: by mail-wm1-f53.google.com with SMTP id f18so46072824wml.3 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:08:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NBP1H27EDQqprsHylY3/H3YElZxmJrndx7GFUStRRjTvPFcdF 90jjMJueHntf2iP6K3QevtMsqHQ4Fl/4o6vBA7s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8E7oBds237v4l+yWVohlRGJJ28JjRCA1x0/geY6AgtVb8ivkCYhl/XO5eGGVwG8EYNYhAg1THNlJM44NTkNY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2144:: with SMTP id v4mr3860286wml.128.1594120105111; Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:08:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Marco Faltelli Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 13:08:14 +0200 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.100.0 at smtp-2015 X-Virus-Status: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-users] Hardware Timestamping with Intel X710 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: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" Hi all, I'm running the l3fwd DPDK sample application and using Moongen's HW NIC timestamp capabilities through this suite for benchmarking l3fwd's latency with 64B packets. I'm running tests both with Intel X520 and X710 NICs. While X520 NICs give me meaningful values (e.g. 8.5 us at 10Gbps, 7.86 us at 5Gbps, 10 us at 1Gbps), Intel X710 show an unexpected increase when running at line rate (16.45 us at 10Gbps), while at lower rates results are quite similar as Intel X520 (7.42 us at 5Gbps, 8.24 us at 1Gbps). Even playing with different parameters (such as DPDK's l3fwd minimum batch transmit size) the problem still occurs. Do you have any insight about Intel X710 timestamping and how this can happen? Thanks, Marco