From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] mbuf: structure reorganization Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 18:15:25 +0200 Message-ID: <2731871.jrfrpyQStK@xps13> References: <1488966121-22853-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com> <20170331105925.135c7377@platinum> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE30C3@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" , "Richardson, Bruce" , "mb@smartsharesystems.com" , "Chilikin, Andrey" , "jblunck@infradead.org" , "nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com" , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" To: Olivier Matz Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com (mail-wr0-f181.google.com [209.85.128.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F7C2B9B for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 18:15:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f181.google.com with SMTP id k6so170982095wre.2 for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 09:15:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB9772583FAE30C3@IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2017-03-31 09:18, Ananyev, Konstantin: > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:41:39 +0100, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:26:10AM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote: > > > > I replayed my tests, and I can also see a performance loss with 1c/1t > > > > (ixgbe), not in the same magnitude however. Here is what I have in MPPS: > > > > > > > > 1c/1t 1c/2t > > > > 53.3 58.7 current > > > > 52.1 58.8 original patchset > > > > 53.3 58.8 removed patches 3 and 9 > > > > 53.1 58.7 with konstantin's patch > > > > > > > > So we have 2 options here: > > > > > > > > 1/ integrate Konstantin's patch in the patchset (thank you, by the way) > > > > 2/ remove patch 3, and keep it for later until we have something that > > > > really no impact > > > > > > > > I'd prefer 1/, knowing that the difference is really small in terms > > > > of cycles per packet. > > > > > > > > > > > 1 is certainly the more attractive option. However, I think we can > > > afford to spend a little more time looking at this before we decide. > > > I'll try and check out the perf numbers I get with i40e with > > > Konstantin's patch today. We also need to double check the other > > > possible issues he reported in his other emails. While I don't want this > > > patchset held up for a long time, I think an extra 24/48 hours is > > > probably needed on it. > > > > > > > Yes, now that we have the "test momentum", try not to loose it ;) > > > > I'm guilty to have missed the performance loss, but honnestly, > > I'm a bit sad that nobody tried to this patchset before (it > > is available for more than 2 months), knowing this is probably one of > > the most critical part of dpdk. I think we need to be better next > > time. > > > > Anyway, thank you for your test and feedback now. > > I am also leaning towards option 1, but agree that some extra testing first > need to be done before making the final decision. > BTW, path #9 need to be removed anyway, even if will go for path #1. > Konstantin Please, can we have a conclusion now?