f VPP.
>>>
>>> I want to open up the discussion WRT to the following:
>>>
>>> 1, Optimizing for maximum vhost perf with vpp including vhost-user
>>> multi-queue.
>>>
>>> 2. Comparision with CSIT results for vhost. Following are two links
&
d give 'chrt -r' a try.
>
Is there a reason why you think SCHED_RR is better than SCHED_FIFO? We
are using isolcpus and have only affinitized one task (PMD) to the CPU
thread so there shouldn't be anything to round robin with.
--
Karl Rister
___
tions except the one with the hashing
issue. For our hardware configuration we believe this is hardware
limited and could potentially go faster (as mentioned on slide 6).
>
> -Maciek
>
>> On 15 Feb 2017, at 17:34, Thomas F Herbert > <mailto:therb...@redhat.com>> wrote:
d all memory channels populated?
> I looks so, but wanted to recheck as not listed on your opening slide :)
Correct on all counts.
>
> -Maciek
>
>> On 15 Feb 2017, at 21:55, Karl Rister wrote:
>>
>> On 02/15/2017 03:28 PM, Maciek Konstantynowicz (mkonstan) wrote
Date: *Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM
> *To: *Thomas F Herbert
> *Cc: *Andrew Theurer , Douglas Shakshober
> , "csit-...@lists.fd.io" ,
> vpp-dev , Karl Rister
> *Subject: *Re: [vpp-dev] Interesting perf test results from Red
> Hat'
on both the dpdk
and vhost-user interfaces at the same time, is that accurate? If so
that is a lot different than our test where each thread is only polling
a single interface.
Attached is a dump of some vppctl command output that hopefully shows
exactly how our setup is configured.
>>
>&
CSIT test configures the cores and I suspect it is
> as you describe.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>Alec
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Karl Rister
> *Organization: *Red Hat
> *Reply-To: *"kris...@redhat.com"
> *Dat
t [mailto:therb...@redhat.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:41 AM
> *To:* Zhou, Danny ; vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> *Cc:* Karl Rister ; csit-...@lists.fd.io
> *Subject:* Re: [vpp-dev] FW: Re: Interesting perf test results from Red
> Hat's test team
>
>
>
