From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/2] net/virtio: fix
 performance regression due to TSO enabling
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:30:47 +0800
Message-ID: <20170130133047.GI20916@yliu-dev.sh.intel.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>
 <a12848b4-76ef-29bc-f512-81bd8c1b9b76@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
 Jan Viktorin <viktorin@rehivetech.com>, dev@dpdk.org
To: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ors=E1k?= <xorsak01@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0B783237
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:28:25 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a12848b4-76ef-29bc-f512-81bd8c1b9b76@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

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.

	--yliu