Hi Paul,
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Emmerich [mailto:emmericp at net.in.tum.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:48 PM
> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> Cc: Pavel Odintsov; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
>
Hi,
De Lara Guarch, Pablo :
> Could you tell me which changes you made here? I see you are using simple tx
> code path on 1.8.0,
> but with the default values, you should be using vector tx,
> unless you have changed anything in the tx configuration.
sorry, I might have written that down wron
Hi,
Matthew Hall :
> Not sure if it's relevant or not, but there was another mail claiming PCIe
> MSI-X wasn't necessarily working in DPDK 2.x. Not sure if that could be
> causing slowdowns when there are drastic volumes of 64-byte packets causing a
> lot of PCI activity.
Interrupts should not
Hi,
sorry, I mixed up the hardware I used for my tests.
Paul Emmerich :
> CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1230 v2
> TurboBoost and HyperThreading disabled.
> Frequency fixed at 3.30 GHz via acpi_cpufreq.
The CPU frequency was fixed at 1.60 GHz to enforce
a CPU bottleneck.
My original post said t
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:28:34AM +0200, Paul Emmerich wrote:
> Let me know if you need any additional information.
> I'd also be interested in the configuration that resulted in the 20% speed-
> up that was mentioned in the original mbuf patch
>
> Paul
>
The speed-up would be for apps that were
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:43:16PM +0200, Paul Emmerich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry, I mixed up the hardware I used for my tests.
>
>
> Paul Emmerich :
> > CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E3-1230 v2
> > TurboBoost and HyperThreading disabled.
> > Frequency fixed at 3.30 GHz via acpi_cpufreq.
>
> The CPU f
> -Original Message-
> From: Richardson, Bruce
> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:55 AM
> To: Paul Emmerich
> Cc: De Lara Guarch, Pablo; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:43:16PM +0
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Emmerich [mailto:emmericp at net.in.tum.de]
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 11:29 PM
> To: De Lara Guarch, Pablo
> Cc: Pavel Odintsov; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
>
> Hi,
&g
Hi,
Pablo :
> Could you tell me how you got the L1 cache miss ratio? Perf?
perf stat -e L1-dcache-loads,L1-dcache-misses l2fwd ...
> Could you provide more information on how you run the l2fwd app,
> in order to try to reproduce the issue:
> - L2fwd Command line
./build/l2fwd -c 3 -n 2 -- -p 3
On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Paul Emmerich wrote:
> Let me know if you need any additional information.
> I'd also be interested in the configuration that resulted in the 20% speed-
> up that was mentioned in the original mbuf patch
Not sure if it's relevant or not, but there was another mail cla
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Odintsov
> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 9:07 AM
> To: Paul Emmerich
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0
>
> Hello!
>
Hello!
I executed deep test of Paul's toolkit and could approve performance
degradation in 2.0.0.
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Paul Emmerich
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm working on a DPDK-based packet generator [1] and I recently tried to
> upgrade from DPDK 1.7.1 to 2.0.0.
> However, I noticed tha
Hi,
I'm working on a DPDK-based packet generator [1] and I recently tried to
upgrade from DPDK 1.7.1 to 2.0.0.
However, I noticed that DPDK 1.7.1 is about 25% faster than 2.0.0 for my use
case.
So I ran some basic performance tests on the l2fwd example with DPDK 1.7.1,
1.8.0 and 2.0.0.
I used an
13 matches
Mail list logo
