> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jay Rolette > Sent: Friday, September 21, 2018 5:39 AM > To: Stephen Hemminger <step...@networkplumber.org> > Cc: DPDK <dev@dpdk.org> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] KNI performance is not what is claimed > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:16 PM Stephen Hemminger < > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:02:53 -0500 > > Jay Rolette <role...@infinite.io> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:11 PM Stephen Hemminger < > > > step...@networkplumber.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I wonder if KNI is claiming performance that was never measured on > > current > > > > CPU, OS, DPDK. > > > > > > > > With single stream and TCP testing on IXGBE (DPDK), I see lowest > > > > performance with KNI. > > > > > > > > Rx Tx > > > > KNI 3.2 Gbit/sec 1.3 Gbit/sec > > > > TAP 4.9 4.7 > > > > Virtio 5.6 8.6 > > > > > > > > Perhaps for 18.11 we should change documentation to remove > language > > > > claiming > > > > better performance with KNI, and then plan for future deprecation? > > > > > > > > > > Do TAP and Virtio provide equivalent function to KNI? I can't speak for > > any > > > other products, but ours is dependent on KNI. The ability for control > > plane > > > applications to use normal Linux sockets with DPDK is key even if it > > isn't > > > performant. > > > > > > Hopefully the answer is "yes", in which case I'll happily port over to > > > using one of the faster mechanisms. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jay > > > > See: > > > > https://doc.dpdk.org/guides- > 17.11/howto/virtio_user_as_exceptional_path.html > > > Thanks. Looks like it's time to run some experiments again.
To do the test with the latest DPDK 17.11 LTS, you'll need the below one-line fix (which was missed during backporting) to enable the offloads: https://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=bce7e9050f9b You can also refer to this paper for more details: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3098586 -Zhihong > > Jay
