From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Coquelin Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] net/virtio: fix performance regression due to TSO enabling Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:54:16 +0100 Message-ID: <87152b72-8563-1515-d734-edcf2437917a@redhat.com> References: <1610499.AMUobBPor6@xps13> <20170112023058.GF2402@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170112160256.6915ff12.viktorin@rehivetech.com> <20170113061309.GF9770@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170116071218.GN9770@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <46569522-b2c3-2a33-9111-049b73c79760@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20170116111256.GA11439@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <8e8178c6-caa2-1b6e-10a0-c83820868db5@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20170116112110.GD10293@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20170130133047.GI20916@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Thomas Monjalon , Jan Viktorin , dev@dpdk.org To: Yuanhan Liu , =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Ors=c3=a1k?= Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5B893237 for ; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:56:18 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20170130133047.GI20916@yliu-dev.sh.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" On 01/30/2017 02:30 PM, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:26:41PM +0100, Michal Orsák wrote: >>>>>>>> For such workload, I don't think it would behaviour worse on ARM. >>>>>>> No reply yet; I will treat it as no objections, and please shout out if any. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both applied to dpdk-next-virtio. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --yliu >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> currently I am running short of time. If you have any test prepared which i >>>>>> can just ran, please send me a link. >>>>> No link, but you could try: >>>>> >>>>> - a typical PVP test >>>>> >>>>> - a txonly test: running txonly fwd mode in guest PMD while running >>>>> rxonly in fwd mode. >>>>> >>>>> The second is a micro test, thus I saw way bigger boost. >>>>> >>>>> When are you available for the testing, btw? >>>> 25.1.2017+ >>> Okay, I will hold on a while to apply them. >> Ok, I will send you results when I have them. > > Again, no reply yet. I'm appying them to dpdk-next-virtio. I really > don't think it could perform worse in ARM, as it removes a costly > cache invalidation operation (which should be more expensive than the > instruction cycles). > > OTOH, again, testing is welcome, if it's later proved to be worse on > ARM (which I highly doubt), I could revert them. Or have a per-architecture definition of ASSIGN_UNLESS_EQUAL if it proved to regress on ARM? Maxime > > --yliu >