PING for apply. Patch has 2 acks. And since it was signed off by a co-maintainer (myself), I don't think an ack from the other co-maintainer (Andrew) is required. Please correct me if I'm wrong?
-Morten > -----Original Message----- > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2024 15.48 > To: Bruce Richardson > Cc: honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com; tho...@monjalon.net; > andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru; dev@dpdk.org; fengcheng...@huawei.com > Subject: RE: [PATCH v7] mempool: test performance with larger bursts > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richard...@intel.com] > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 10:56:00AM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote: > > > PING (again) for review. > > > > > > Many applications use bursts of more than 32 packets, > > > and some applications buffer more than 512 packets. > > > > > > This patch updates the mempool perf test accordingly. > > > > > > -Morten > > > > > > > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, 4 April 2024 11.27 > > > > > > > > PING for review. This patch is relatively trivial. > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 March 2024 21.04 > > > > > > > > > > Bursts of up to 64, 128 and 256 packets are not uncommon, so increase > > the > > > > > maximum tested get and put burst sizes from 32 to 256. > > > > > For convenience, also test get and put burst sizes of > > > > > RTE_MEMPOOL_CACHE_MAX_SIZE. > > > > > > > > > > Some applications keep more than 512 objects, so increase the maximum > > > > > number of kept objects from 512 to 32768, still in jumps of factor > four. > > > > > This exceeds the typical mempool cache size of 512 objects, so the > test > > > > > also exercises the mempool driver. > > > > > > > > > > Increased the precision of rate_persec calculation by timing the > actual > > > > > duration of the test, instead of assuming it took exactly 5 seconds. > > > > > > > > > > Added cache guard to per-lcore stats structure. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Brørup <m...@smartsharesystems.com> > > > > > Acked-by: Chengwen Feng <fengcheng...@huawei.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > v7: > > > > > * Increase max burst size to 256. (Inspired by Honnappa) > > > > > v6: > > > > > * Do not test with more lcores than available. (Thomas) > > > > > v5: > > > > > * Increased N, to reduce measurement overhead with large numbers of > kept > > > > > objects. > > > > > * Increased precision of rate_persec calculation. > > > > > * Added missing cache guard to per-lcore stats structure. > > > > This looks ok to me. However, the test itself takes a very long time to > > run, with 5 seconds per iteration. One suggest I have is to reduce the > > 5-seconds to 1-second - given we are looking at millions of iterations each > > time, the difference in results should not be that great, I'd hope. > > The test duration annoys me too. > > Reducing the duration of each iteration would make the test more sensitive to > short spikes of noise, e.g. from noisy neighbors in virtual environments. > Someone once decided that 5 seconds was a good duration, and I didn't want to > challenge that. > > I also considered reducing the array of tested burst sizes, by jumping factor > four here too; but I assume that both 32, 64, 128 and 256 are popular max > burst sizes in applications, so I decided to keep them all, instead of > omitting 32 and 128 and only keeping 64 and 256 to represent full bursts. > > > A very > > quick test of the delta on my end indicates variance in the first couple of > > results of a couple of %, just. > > Thanks for the review and suggestions, though. > > > > > With or without this suggestion. > > > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com>
