[ovs-dev] [PATCH v3 00/14] Support multi-segment mbufs

Lam, Tiago tiago.lam at intel.com
Fri Jul 6 11:03:36 UTC 2018


On 06/07/2018 09:51, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5 Jul 2018, at 18:29, Tiago Lam wrote:
> 

[snip]

>>
>>
>> Performance notes (based on v8)
>> =================
>> In order to test for regressions in performance, tests were run on top
>> of master 88125d6 and v8 of this patchset, both with the multi-segment
>> mbufs option enabled and disabled.
>>
>> VSperf was used to run the phy2phy_cont and pvp_cont tests with 
>> varying
>> packet sizes of 64B, 1500B and 7000B, on a 10Gbps interface.
>>
>> Test | Size | Master | Multi-seg disabled | Multi-seg enabled
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> p2p  |  64  | ~22.7  |      ~22.65        |       ~18.3
>> p2p  | 1500 |  ~1.6  |        ~1.6        |        ~1.6
>> p2p  | 7000 | ~0.36  |       ~0.36        |       ~0.36
>> pvp  |  64  |  ~6.7  |        ~6.7        |        ~6.3
>> pvp  | 1500 |  ~1.6  |        ~1.6        |        ~1.6
>> pvp  | 7000 | ~0.36  |       ~0.36        |       ~0.36
>>
>> Packet size is in bytes, while all packet rates are reported in mpps
>> (aggregated).
>>
>> No noticeable regression has been observed (certainly everything is
>> within the ± 5% margin of existing performance), aside from the 64B
>> packet size case when multi-segment mbuf is enabled. This is
>> expected, however, because of how Tx vectoriszed functions are
>> incompatible with multi-segment mbufs on some PMDs. The PMD under
>> use during these tests was the i40e (on a Intel X710 NIC), which
>> indeed doesn't support vectorized Tx functions with multi-segment
>> mbufs.
>>
> Thanks for all the work Tiago! It all looks good to me, so hereby I 
> would like to ack the series.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eelco
> 
> 
> Acked-by: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro at redhat.com>
> 
> <SNIP>
> 

And thanks again for putting the time for reviewing and confirming the
results, Eelco.

A side note on the series: It will need rebasing once Ian's work on
"dpdk: Support both shared and per port mempools" goes in.

Tiago.


More information about the dev mailing list