From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz-pdR9zngts4EAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len
 in a	bitfield
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:30:34 +0200
Message-ID: <5379CF3A.90609@6wind.com>
References: <1399647038-15095-1-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <1399647038-15095-6-git-send-email-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <4032A54B6BB5F04B8C08B6CFF08C59285542081E@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <536CFCEF.4080704@6wind.com>
 <4032A54B6BB5F04B8C08B6CFF08C59285542085B@FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <5379B25B.6050003@6wind.com>
 <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA1B1B2@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>,
 "Shaw, Jeffrey B" <jeffrey.b.shaw-ral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>, "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" <dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01AA1B1B2-kPTMFJFq+rELt2AQoY/u9bfspsVTdybXVpNB7YpNyf8@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org>

Hi Bruce,

> Can you perhaps also include the specific testpmd parameter you used in your tests, as they can have a large effect on performance. On my Sandy Bridge platform here are the testpmd flags I use for iofwd testing:
>
> "--rxd=128 --rxfreet=32 --rxpt=8 --rxht=8 --rxwt=0 --txd=512 --txfreet=32 --txpt=32 --txht=0 --txwt=0 --txrst=32 --txqflags=0xF01 --numa --burst=32 --mbcache=250 --total-num-mbufs=16383"

Sure.

Common arguments:
  -b 0000:07:00.0 -b 0000:07:00.1
  -b 0000:83:00.0 -b 0000:84:00.0
  -n 4
  -c 0x00ff00ff
  --socket-mem=2048,0
  --
  --port-numa-config=0,0,1,0,2,0,3,0
  --socket-num=0
  -i
  --burst=32
  --txd=512
  --rxd=512
  --mbcache=128
  --portmask=0xf

Simple rx/tx:
   --txqflags=0xf01

1c1t:
  --coremask=0x00000080 --rxq=1 --txq=1

1c2t:
  --coremask=0x00800080 --rxq=1 --txq=1

2c2t:
  --coremask=0x00000088 --rxq=1 --txq=1

2c4t:
  --coremask=0x00880088 --rxq=1 --txq=1

4c8t:
  --coremask=0x00cc00cc --rxq=2 --txq=2


By the way, I think the absolute performance numbers are not so
important in these tests. What is really important is to show the
relative impact of the patches.

Regards,
Olivier