13/09/2024 16:58, Morten Brørup: > 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?
It's not a matter of acks. I feel we should reduce from 5 seconds to 1 second as part of this patch. But seeing there is no more comments, I suppose I should apply this version. > From: Morten Brørup [mailto:m...@smartsharesystems.com] > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > 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>
