From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] app/testpmd: optimize testpmd txonly mode Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2019 22:53:36 +0200 Message-ID: <1732867.UvzobiCdsi@xps> References: <20190228194128.14236-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <20190331131341.12924-1-pbhagavatula@marvell.com> <4ceb7729-22be-69e5-6636-a8a8d9397a4f@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Ferruh Yigit , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , "arybchenko@solarflare.com" , "bernard.iremonger@intel.com" , Shahaf Shuler To: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9688A343C for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2019 22:53:42 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <4ceb7729-22be-69e5-6636-a8a8d9397a4f@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" 01/04/2019 22:25, Ferruh Yigit: > On 3/31/2019 2:14 PM, Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula wrote: > > From: Pavan Nikhilesh > > > > Optimize testpmd txonly mode by > > 1. Moving per packet ethernet header copy above the loop. > > 2. Use bulk ops for allocating segments instead of having a inner loop > > for every segment. > > > > Also, move the packet prepare logic into a separate function so that it > > can be reused later. > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh > > --- > > v5 Changes > > - Remove unnecessary change to struct rte_port *txp (movement). (Bernard) > > > > v4 Changes: > > - Fix packet len calculation. > > > > v3 Changes: > > - Split the patches for easier review. (Thomas) > > - Remove unnecessary assignments to 0. (Bernard) > > > > v2 Changes: > > - Use bulk ops for fetching segments. (Andrew Rybchenko) > > - Fallback to rte_mbuf_raw_alloc if bulk get fails. (Andrew Rybchenko) > > - Fix mbufs not being freed when there is no more mbufs available for > > segments. (Andrew Rybchenko) > > Hi Thomas, Shahafs, > > I guess there was a performance issue on Mellanox with this patch, I assume it > is still valid, since this version only has some cosmetic change, but can you > please confirm? We will check it. > And what is the next step, can you guys provide some info to Pavan to solve the > issue, or perhaps even better a fix? Looking at the first patch, there are still 3 changes merged together. Why not splitting even more?