gt;
> > -Original Message-
>
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Royce Niu
>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 9:36 PM
>
> > To: Richardson, Bruce
>
> > Cc: Royce Niu ; dev@dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian
>
>
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2016 9:36 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce
> Cc: Royce Niu ; dev@dpdk.org; Dumitrescu, Cristian
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Why IP_PIPELINE is faster than L2FWD
>
> Dear Bruce,
>
> Thanks for your kind explanation.
>
> I will try to follow
Dear Bruce,
Thanks for your kind explanation.
I will try to follow your suggestion and see the source code.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:25 PM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 08:48:50PM +0800, Royce Niu wrote:
> > But, actually, L3FWD of IP_PIPELINE
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 08:48:50PM +0800, Royce Niu wrote:
> But, actually, L3FWD of IP_PIPELINE is also faster than stock L2FWD, which
> also modifies mac addr. How can explain this?
>
> Actually, I want to know why IP_PIPELINE is much faster and I can learn
> from IP_PIPELINE and make our own pr
But, actually, L3FWD of IP_PIPELINE is also faster than stock L2FWD, which
also modifies mac addr. How can explain this?
Actually, I want to know why IP_PIPELINE is much faster and I can learn
from IP_PIPELINE and make our own program.
But, the documentation of that is not detailed enough. if it
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:18:12AM +0800, Royce Niu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I tested default L2FWD and IP_PIPELINE (pass-through). The throughput of
> IP_PIPELINE is higher immensely.
>
> There are only two virtual NICs in KVM. The experiment is just moving
> packet from vNIC0 to vNIC1. I think the
Hi all,
I tested default L2FWD and IP_PIPELINE (pass-through). The throughput of
IP_PIPELINE is higher immensely.
There are only two virtual NICs in KVM. The experiment is just moving
packet from vNIC0 to vNIC1. I think the function is so simple. Why L2FWD
is much slower?
How can I improve L2FW
7 matches
Mail list logo
