search for: pktgen_sample01_simpl

...> > the patches or the approach in general. Thank you. > > > > > > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > > > The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > > guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > > > Thanks > > Could you supply host configuration involved please? I wonder how much of that could be caused by Spectre mitigations blowing up indirect function calls... Cheers, Ben.

...> > the patches or the approach in general. Thank you. > > > > > > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > > > The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > > guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > > > Thanks > > Could you supply host configuration involved please? I wonder how much of that could be caused by Spectre mitigations blowing up indirect function calls... Cheers, Ben.

...pproach in general. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports >>>>> about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. >>>> >>>> The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in >>>> guest and measure PPS on tap on host. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> >>> Could you supply host configuration involved please? >> >> I wonder how much of that could be caused by Spectre mitigations >> blowing up indirect func...

...pproach in general. Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports >>>>> about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. >>>> >>>> The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in >>>> guest and measure PPS on tap on host. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> >>> Could you supply host configuration involved please? >> >> I wonder how much of that could be caused by Spectre mitigations >> blowing up indirect func...

...will appreciate suggestions, inputs, comments regarding >> the patches or the approach in general. Thank you. > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in guest and measure PPS on tap on host. Thanks > > I expect he's writing up the data in more detail, but > just wanted to let you know this would be one more > thing to debug before we can just switch to DMA APIs. > > >> Anshuman Khandual (4): >> virtio...

...will appreciate suggestions, inputs, comments regarding >> the patches or the approach in general. Thank you. > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in guest and measure PPS on tap on host. Thanks > > I expect he's writing up the data in more detail, but > just wanted to let you know this would be one more > thing to debug before we can just switch to DMA APIs. > > >> Anshuman Khandual (4): >> virtio...

...gt;>> > > >>>>> Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > >>>>> about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > >>>> > > >>>> The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > > >>>> guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>> > > >>> Could you supply host configuration involved please? > > >> > > >> I wonder how much of that co...

...gt;>> > > >>>>> Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > >>>>> about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > >>>> > > >>>> The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > > >>>> guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks > > >>> > > >>> Could you supply host configuration involved please? > > >> > > >> I wonder how much of that co...

...the approach in general. Thank you. > > > > > > > > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > > > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > > > > > The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > > > guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Could you supply host configuration involved please? > > I wonder how much of that could be caused by Spectre mitigations > blowing up indirect function calls... > &...

...you. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > >>>>> about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > >>>> > >>>> The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > >>>> guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>> > >>> Could you supply host configuration involved please? > >> > >> I wonder how much of that could be caused by Spectre mitigation...

...; > >>>>> Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > > >>>>> about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > > > >>>> guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks > > > >>> > > > >>> Could you supply host configuration involved please? > > > >> > > > &g...

...ns, inputs, comments regarding > > > the patches or the approach in general. Thank you. > > Jason did some work on profiling this. Unfortunately he reports > > about 4% extra overhead from this switch on x86 with no vIOMMU. > > The test is rather simple, just run pktgen (pktgen_sample01_simple.sh) in > guest and measure PPS on tap on host. > > Thanks Could you supply host configuration involved please? > > > > I expect he's writing up the data in more detail, but > > just wanted to let you know this would be one more > > thing to debug before we...

...ust a XDP_DROP. > I think it would be interesting to see them. > > Rx: > === > > Regarding Rx, the reverse is observed: a small performance increase is > observed with batching (~2%), but buf_api makes tests perform equally > to baseline. > > pktgen was called using pktgen_sample01_simple.sh, with the environment: > DEV="$tap_name" F_THREAD=1 DST_MAC=$MAC_ADDR COUNT=$((2500000*25)) > SKB_CLONE=$((2**31)) > > And testpmd is the same as Tx but with forward-mode=rxonly. > > Pktgen reports: > Baseline: 1853025pps 622Mb/sec (622616400bps) errors: 7915231...

This patch series is the follow up on the discussions we had before about the RFC titled [RFC,V2] virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation for virito devices (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10417371/). There were suggestions about doing away with two different paths of transactions with the host/QEMU, first being the direct GPA and the other being the DMA API based translations.

This patch series is the follow up on the discussions we had before about the RFC titled [RFC,V2] virtio: Add platform specific DMA API translation for virito devices (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10417371/). There were suggestions about doing away with two different paths of transactions with the host/QEMU, first being the direct GPA and the other being the DMA API based translations.

This still causes corruption issues for people so don't try to use in production please. Posting to expedite debugging. This adds infrastructure required for supporting multiple ring formats. The idea is as follows: we convert descriptors to an independent format first, and process that converting to iov later. Used ring is similar: we fetch into an independent struct first, convert that to

This still causes corruption issues for people so don't try to use in production please. Posting to expedite debugging. This adds infrastructure required for supporting multiple ring formats. The idea is as follows: we convert descriptors to an independent format first, and process that converting to iov later. Used ring is similar: we fetch into an independent struct first, convert that to