2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t > > > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here is what I have in MPPS: > > > > > > > > 1c/1t 1c/2t > > > > 53.3 58.7 current > > > > 52.1 58.8 original patchset > > > > 53.3 58.8 removed patches 3 and 9 > > > > 53.1 58.7 with konstantin's patch > > > > > > > > So we have 2 options here: > > > > > > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, by the way) > > > > 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we have something that > > > > really no impact > > > > > > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in terms > > > > of cycles per packet. > > > > > > > > > > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we can > > > afford to spend a little more time looking at this before we decide. > > > I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with i40e with > > > Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double check the other > > > possible issues he reported in his other emails. While I don't want this > > > patchset held up for a long time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is > > > probably needed on it. > > > > > > > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;) > > > > I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly, > > I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it > > is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably one of > > the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be better next > > time. > > > > Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now. > > I am also leaning towards option 1, but agree that some extra testing first > need to be done before making the final decision. > BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1. > Konstantin
Please, can we have a conclusion now?
