From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (mail-wm0-f65.google.com [74.125.82.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B95106A for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 15:41:24 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id d140so22582551wmd.2 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:41:24 -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=NnoqmTL5zUZ4j+3JPlDITwfHpZjJ3d7fZUQRLnwQJiQ=; b=vdnvu5Ui9yaVS6v1UK/QDDDKxMxF96WQPoJStDHR0DhY0LMhoL9JHC+5IWBw6XE5Vq CBPBZ5Kxdq4i11wzW9Yrwy8JMhL1BFM8cG1w6+cIpKjKagr5FhMwzgbz1tx786RyEEan lb4YeNFHdvlF9Y+2VLgLn4j5pOp36ySGLsBbzZuPOTj61rMKZXZp7ILVU0fkEgfa5d5k gd6rFqryvCVHKl/m+2j8oUU9REW+k0RbvY2gMrqFOngqeDC9+lM68l8GpVnAbwOVYu9Y Viji90jCA0S/fLUJeLZ2/FpovOoyYiEHGZpIqbd0fDuNh20H9SpAwKNUQiGQ6yD+yUdA KGyA== 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=NnoqmTL5zUZ4j+3JPlDITwfHpZjJ3d7fZUQRLnwQJiQ=; b=Hk+fsO8gwRbfeXk8UWsq2mH4rHSJU2slfbWFmAJE2Br6jH7pSP4Pq5JwPuBX0kewbq HTuqHSTSwA0UeiVrItebP9I9Mxn8X8Anv8CxIO+xoeetr2ELljjggAwl3Uozj6w7BGa4 k4orJRVK8SHVcjForjB6BHnpBnbS9+9YcMaxWZ28juR4r9Tej7mUTvIjGeMDJEFkUuL2 bBGNtnYKOpzv9KESmDFn89hijUUTTwJIcA0cjqOpK+jqOzGayndbcI6lodPlz4x89f1z ocDybzv669Fuqb2OtB/WnaXCJKCHRCTyyK05wPq8cgWeqDvV5M9dN0SlXToiCSN5u+5f 459Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ9JvjWchsz0xW8Par9yMeP4JUGE5fyzh8rB/kz4M2ESRBXyYR+yexsHleEEai0TU/LorEwKUiTqnDtvA== X-Received: by 10.28.95.87 with SMTP id t84mr15721639wmb.135.1484664083967; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:41:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.102.131 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:41:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.28.102.131 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:41:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: dave seddon Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 06:41:22 -0800 Message-ID: To: maruko.kwok@gmail.com Cc: users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:41:24 -0000 There's an interesting video about speed: https://youtu.be/ne3svryuthI On Jan 17, 2017 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 >