On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 03:47:41PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:07:57AM +0200, Dmitry Kozlyuk wrote: > > Memory allocator performance is crucial to applications that deal > > with large amount of memory or allocate frequently. DPDK allocator > > performance is affected by EAL options, API used and, at least, > > allocation size. New autotest is intended to be run with different > > EAL options. It measures performance with a range of sizes > > for dirrerent APIs: rte_malloc, rte_zmalloc, and rte_memzone_reserve. > > > > Work distribution between allocation and deallocation depends on EAL > > options. The test prints both times and total time to ease comparison. > > > > Memory can be filled with zeroes at different points of allocation path, > > but it always takes considerable fraction of overall timing. This is why > > the test measures filling speed and prints how long clearing takes > > for each size as a reference (for rte_memzone_reserve estimations > > are printed). > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Kozlyuk <dkozl...@nvidia.com> > > Reviewed-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viachesl...@nvidia.com> > > --- > What is the expected running time of this test? When I tried it out on my > machine it appears to hang after the following output: > > USER1: 4096 10000 3.44 1.11 4.56 > 0.67 > USER1: 65536 10000 21.85 14.75 36.60 > 9.38 > USER1: 1048576 10000 481.40 329.96 811.36 > 147.62 > Just realised I stripped a bit too much context here, including section title too:
USER1: Performance: rte_malloc USER1: Size (B) Runs Alloc (us) Free (us) Total (us) memset (us) USER1: 64 10000 0.10 0.04 0.14 0.02 USER1: 128 10000 0.14 0.05 0.20 0.01 USER1: 1024 10000 2.39 0.15 2.54 0.06 USER1: 4096 10000 3.44 1.11 4.56 0.67 USER1: 65536 10000 21.85 14.75 36.60 9.38 USER1: 1048576 10000 481.40 329.96 811.36 147.62
