Hi Bruce,
> Can you perhaps also include the specific testpmd parameter you used in your
> tests, as they can have a large effect on performance. On my Sandy Bridge
> platform here are the testpmd flags I use for iofwd testing:
>
> "--rxd=128 --rxfreet=32 --rxpt=8 --rxht=8 --rxwt=0 --txd=512 --t
> -Original Message-
> From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:31 AM
> To: Richardson, Bruce; Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in
> a bitfield
>
Hi Jeff,
On 05/09/2014 06:11 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote:
> I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the
> patches have settled.
Here are some performance numbers I've measured with the TSO
patches. The test platform is:
+---+ +---+
|
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:27 AM
> To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in
> a bitfield
>
>
Hi Konstantin,
On 05/14/2014 04:07 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Apart from performance impact, one more concern:
> As I know, theoretical limit for PA on Intel is 52 bits.
> I understand that these days no-one using more than 48 bits and it probably
> would stay like that for next few years.
be to keep phys_addr 64bit long.
Thanks
Konstantin
-Original Message-
From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Shaw, Jeffrey B
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 5:12 PM
To: Olivier MATZ; dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your comment.
On 05/09/2014 05:39 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote:
> have you tested this patch to see if there is a negative impact to
> performance?
Yes, but not with testpmd. I passed our internal non-regression
performance tests and it shows no difference (or below the error
The physical address is never greater than (1 << 48) = 256 TB.
We can win 2 bytes in the mbuf structure by merging the physical
address and the buffer length in the same bitfield.
Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz
---
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 3 ++-
lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 7 ---
2 files
I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the patches
have settled.
-Original Message-
From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:06 AM
To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf
ports.
Thanks,
Jeff
-Original Message-
From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 7:51 AM
To: dev at dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a
bitfield
The physical address is never greater than (1
10 matches
Mail list logo
