On 5/27/2016 11:24 AM, Hunt, David wrote: > > > On 5/24/2016 4:17 PM, Jerin Jacob wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:59:47PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: >> >>> Are you seeing some performance improvement by using rte_memcpy()? >> Yes, In some case, In default case, It was replaced with memcpy by the >> compiler itself(gcc 5.3). But when I tried external mempool manager >> patch and >> then performance dropped almost 800Kpps. Debugging further it turns >> out that >> external mempool managers unrelated change was knocking out the memcpy. >> explicit rte_memcpy brought back 500Kpps. Remaing 300Kpps drop is still >> unknown(In my test setup, packets are in the local cache, so it must be >> something do with __mempool_put_bulk text alignment change or similar. >> >> Anyone else observed performance drop with external poolmanager? >> >> Jerin > > Jerin, > I'm seeing a 300kpps drop in throughput when I apply this on top > of the external > mempool manager patch. If you're seeing an increase if you apply this > patch first, then > a drop when applying the mempool manager, the two patches must be > conflicting in > some way. We probably need to investigate further. > Regards, > Dave. >
On further investigation, I now have a setup with no performance degradation. My previous tests were accessing the NICS on a different NUMA node. Once I initiated testPMD with the correct coremask, the difference between pre and post rte_memcpy patch is negligible (maybe 0.1% drop). Regards, Dave.
