Hi
> > > As you have stated below, it's just the same thing with two different
> > views.
> > >
> > > > I think it would be plausible for both cases:
> > > > - one port per core (your case).
> > > > - multiple ports per core.
> > >
> > > Indeed. For this particular patch, I just chose the firs
Hi Ananyev,
[...]
> > As you have stated below, it's just the same thing with two different
> views.
> >
> > > I think it would be plausible for both cases:
> > > - one port per core (your case).
> > > - multiple ports per core.
> >
> > Indeed. For this particular patch, I just chose the first on
> -Original Message-
> From: Shreyansh Jain [mailto:shreyansh.j...@nxp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:48 PM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Ruifeng Wang (Arm
> Technology China) ;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd:
Hello Ananyev,
> Hi Shreyansh,
>
> > > > I tried this patch on MacchiatoBin + 82599 NIC.
> > > > Compared with global-pool mode, per-port-pool mode showed slightly
> > > lower performance in single core test.
> > >
> > > That was my thought too - for the case when queues from multiple
> ports
> >
Hi Shreyansh,
> > > I tried this patch on MacchiatoBin + 82599 NIC.
> > > Compared with global-pool mode, per-port-pool mode showed slightly
> > lower performance in single core test.
> >
> > That was my thought too - for the case when queues from multiple ports
> > are handled by the same core
Hello Ruifeng,
>
>
> Hi Shreyansh,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Shreyansh Jain
> > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 14:48
> > To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ;
> > Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: nd ; nd
> > S
Hi Shreyansh,
> -Original Message-
> From: Shreyansh Jain
> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 14:48
> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ;
> Ananyev, Konstantin ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd ; nd
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer
&g
Hi Ruifeng,
[...]
> >
> > For hardware backed pools, hardware access and exclusion are
> expensive. By
> > segregating pool/port/lcores it is possible to attain a conflict free
> path. This is
> > the use-case this patch targets.
> > And anyways, this is an optional feature.
> >
> > > Konstantin
Hi Shreyansh,
> -Original Message-
> From: Shreyansh Jain
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 17:25
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin ; Ruifeng Wang
> (Arm Technology China) ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate buffer
&g
Hi Konstantin, Ruifeng,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 3:00 PM
> To: Ruifeng Wang (Arm Technology China) ;
> Shreyansh Jain ; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: nd
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] examples/l3fwd: support separate b
>
> Hi Shreyansh,
>
> I tried this patch on MacchiatoBin + 82599 NIC.
> Compared with global-pool mode, per-port-pool mode showed slightly lower
> performance in single core test.
That was my thought too - for the case when queues from multiple ports are
handled by the same core
it probably
Hi Shreyansh,
I tried this patch on MacchiatoBin + 82599 NIC.
Compared with global-pool mode, per-port-pool mode showed slightly lower
performance in single core test.
In dual core test, both modes had nearly same performance.
My setup only has two ports which is limited.
Just want to know the
ping
On 03-Jan-19 5:00 PM, Shreyansh Jain wrote:
> Traditionally, only a single buffer pool per port
> (or, per-port-per-socket) is created in l3fwd application.
>
> If separate pools are created per-port, it might lead to gain in
> performance as packet alloc/dealloc requests would be isolated
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
