Hi Konstantin,
2014-05-28 09:17, Ananyev, Konstantin:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> >As you are doing optimizations, it's important to know the performance gain.
> >It could help to mitigate future reworks.
> >So please, could you provide some benchmarking numbers in the commit log?
>
> Some performance data
Acked-by: Pablo de Lara Guarch
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Konstantin Ananyev
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 5:56 PM
> To: dev at dpdk.org; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] L3FWD sample optimisation
>
Tested-by: Waterman Cao
This patch has been tested by Intel. We performed l3fwd performance test.
Test result shows that l3fwd performance with this ?lpm optimization? patch is
much higher than that without this patch.
Test environment: Fedora 20, Linux Kernel 3.11.10, GCC 4.8.2, Intel Xeon
p
Hi Thomas,
>As you are doing optimizations, it's important to know the performance gain.
>It could help to mitigate future reworks.
>So please, could you provide some benchmarking numbers in the commit log?
Some performance data below.
Also, forgot to mention that new code path can be switched on
Hi Konstantin,
2014-05-22 17:55, Konstantin Ananyev:
> With latest HW and optimised RX/TX path there is a huge gap between
> tespmd iofwd and l3fwd performance results.
> So there is an attempt to optimise l3fwd LPM code path and reduce the gap:
> - Instead of processing each input packet up to c
With latest HW and optimised RX/TX path there is a huge gap between
tespmd iofwd and l3fwd performance results.
So there is an attempt to optimise l3fwd LPM code path and reduce the gap:
- Instead of processing each input packet up to completion -
divide packet processing into several stage
6 matches
Mail list logo
