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
uild/l3fwd -c 0xc -w :01:00.0 -w :01:00.1 --
> -P -p 3 --config='(0,0,2),(1,0,3)' --per-port-pool
>
> Regards,
> /Ruifeng
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev On Behalf Of Shreyansh Jain
> > Sent: 2019年1月3日 19:30
> > To: dev@dp
01:00.0 -w :01:00.1 -- -P
-p 3 --config='(0,0,2),(1,0,3)' --per-port-pool
Regards,
/Ruifeng
> -Original Message-
> From: dev On Behalf Of Shreyansh Jain
> Sent: 2019年1月3日 19:30
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Shreyansh Jain
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] exampl
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
>
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
across ports (and their corresponding lcores).
This patch ad
14 matches
Mail list logo
