> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:27 AM > To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in > a bitfield > > Hi Jeff, > > On 05/09/2014 06:11 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote: > > I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the > patches have settled. > > Here are some performance numbers I've measured with the TSO > patches. The test platform is: > > +-----------+ +-----------+ > | | | | > | traffic |-----------| dpdk | > | generator |-----------| testpmd | > | |-----------| | > | |-----------| | > | | | | > +-----------+ +-----------+ > > - 4 ixgbe ports > - sandy bridge at 2.7 Ghz > > I've only included numbers for pkt_size=64. Other packet sizes > do not bring more information in this case. > > I have 4 test cases: > > - testpmd in iofwd mode with normal tx/rx function > - testpmd in iofwd mode with simple tx/rx function (txqflags=0xf01) > - testpmd in macfwd mode with normal tx/rx function > - testpmd in macfwd mode with simple tx/rx function (txqflags=0xf01) > > I tested this for 1c1t, 1c2t, 2c2t, 2c4t, 4c8t on the following version: > > - dpdk.org head > - dpdk.org + tso patchs until 6/11 (included): it includes all mbuf > reworks (data_offset instead of data, remove ctrl mbuf, use 48 bits > physical address) > - dpdk.org + all tso series
Hi Olivier, Can you perhaps also include the specific testpmd parameter you used in your tests, as they can have a large effect on performance. On my Sandy Bridge platform here are the testpmd flags I use for iofwd testing: "--rxd=128 --rxfreet=32 --rxpt=8 --rxht=8 --rxwt=0 --txd=512 --txfreet=32 --txpt=32 --txht=0 --txwt=0 --txrst=32 --txqflags=0xF01 --numa --burst=32 --mbcache=250 --total-num-mbufs=16383" Regards, /Bruce
