Thanks Fran?ois-Fr?d?ric. Trying to embark on a small prototype and see the results. Thanks for the timing data. Really helpful.
Regards, Sambath On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Fran?ois-Fr?d?ric Ozog <ff at ozog.com> wrote: > You are welcome ! > > > > Even if you insert packets in batch into a fifo, the mutex is still > unpredictable. If one pthread_lock costs 1ms, you are going to lose > packets, regardless of the number of RSS queues and ring sizes? Batching > comes with another issue: need to flush a batch after a certain timeout if > you do not have packets. Userland timer resolution is such that you are > introducing port to port latency quite a lot: DPDK native, you can manage > to get a 2?s latency (including PCI express), while with batch it may be > 1ms? You may find smarter algorithms but still you will be an order of > magnitude higher than DPDK. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > Fran?ois-Fr?d?ric > > > > *De :* Sambath Kumar Balasubramanian [mailto: > sambath.balasubramanian at gmail.com] > *Envoy? :* mercredi 4 d?cembre 2013 15:01 > *? :* Fran?ois-Fr?d?ric Ozog > *Cc :* dev at dpdk.org > *Objet :* Re: [dpdk-dev] Question on the Ring Library > > > > Thanks Fran?ois-Fr?d?ric. That puts real good perspective on the cost for > the vent assuming each packet in the fast will result > > in an event. If event rate is orders of magnitude less than the packet > rate, then I guess we can still achieve 10G since the "extra cost" will be > in the event thread and not in the fast path thread. > > > > Regards, > > Sambath >
