From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bruce Richardson Subject: Re: Performance regression in DPDK 1.8/2.0 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 11:55:06 +0100 Message-ID: <20150428105505.GA7484@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <6DC6DE50-F94F-419C-98DF-3AD8DCD4F69D@net.in.tum.de> <23D2CA18-1875-4182-8DEE-9F6393011D2C@net.in.tum.de> <47D837AA-FE82-45A1-AC3D-3CF600F5CC19@net.in.tum.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: Paul Emmerich Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47D837AA-FE82-45A1-AC3D-3CF600F5CC19-mrRt1sWyIK0ZId6A0yLOdQ@public.gmane.org> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 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 frequency was fixed at 1.60 GHz to enforce > a CPU bottleneck. > > > My original post said that I used a Xeon E5-2620 v3 > at 1.2 GHz, this is incorrect. The calculation for Cycles/Pkt > in the original post used the correct 1.6 GHz figure, though. > > (I used the E5 CPU for the evaluation of my packet generator > performance with 1.7.1/2.0.0, not for the l2fwd test.) > > > Sorry for the confusion. > > > Paul Thanks for the update - we are investigating. /Bruce