On 5 May 2017 at 12:24, Sekhar, Ashwin <ashwin.sek...@cavium.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-04 at 16:42 +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote: >> Hi Ashwin, >> >> On 3 May 2017 at 13:24, Jianbo Liu <jianbo....@linaro.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Ashwin, >> > >> > On 2 May 2017 at 19:47, Sekhar, Ashwin <ashwin.sek...@cavium.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi Jianbo, >> > > >> > > I tested your neon changes on thunderx. I am seeing a performance >> > > regression of ~10% for LPM case and ~20% for EM case with your >> > > changes. >> > > Did you see improvement on any arm64 platform with these changes. >> > > If >> > > yes, how much was the improvement? >> > Thanks for your reviewing and testing. >> > For some reason, I have not done much with the performance testing. >> > I'll send a new version later after tuning the performance. >> > >> Can you tell me how did you test? > Built with following commands. > make config T=arm64-thunderx-linuxapp-gcc > make -j32 > > Tested LPM with > sudo ./examples/l3fwd/build/l3fwd -l 9,10 --master-lcore 9 -- -p 0x1 > --config="(0,0,10)" > > Tested EM with > sudo ./examples/l3fwd/build/l3fwd -l 9,10 --master-lcore 9 -- -p 0x1 > --config="(0,0,10)" -E >
Only one port? What's the network topology, and lpm/em rules? How did you stress traffic...? >> My testing shows that EM case is much better, while LPM is almost the >> same as before. > Could you please tell on which arm64 processor/platform you tested. > Also how much was the percentage increase in performance for EM ? > I'm sorry I can't tell you what's arm64 platform I tested on. But I can get a ThunderX, and replicate your testing environment if you can tell me more... Thanks! Jianbo
