search for: rxonly

hello winers! has anyone a kind of debug channels documentation? i mean that parameters after "--debugmsg" like: "+relay,+loaddll,+reg"... i need to see network stuff in the debug messages. thanx, cheers! rxon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20040802/0b9fca0a/attachment.htm

hello! basically what is the difference between DCOM95 and DCOM98? if i change from 95 to 98, what kind of effects should it make to my apps under wine tnx! rxon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20040816/18462dc5/attachment.html

...both testpmd are using AF_PACKET driver. > > > > > > I see, using AF_PACKET means extra layers of issues need to be analyzed > > which is probably not good. > > > > > > > > > >>> with a > > >>> testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the > > >>> receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts, > > >>> and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to > > >>> schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors. &gt...

...m similarly in > both directions. > > All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a > host's tap interface (<interface type='ethernet'> in xml), What DPDK driver did you use in the test (AF_PACKET?). > with a > testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the > receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts, > and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to > schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors. My feeling is that if we start from simple setup, it wo...

...n wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:03:17PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patch set implements packed ring support in virtio driver. > > > > A performance test between pktgen (pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh) > > and DPDK vhost (testpmd/rxonly/vhost-PMD) has been done, I saw > > ~30% performance gain in packed ring in this case. > > Thanks a lot, this is very exciting! > Dave, given the holiday, attempts to wrap up the 1.1 spec and the > patchset size I would very much appreciate a bit more time for > review. Say un...

...t; >> What DPDK driver did you use in the test (AF_PACKET?). >> > Yes, both testpmd are using AF_PACKET driver. I see, using AF_PACKET means extra layers of issues need to be analyzed which is probably not good. > >>> with a >>> testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the >>> receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts, >>> and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to >>> schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors. >> >> My feeling is t...

...ob/master/virtio-v1.1-packed-wd07.pdf . The code were tested with pmd implement by Jens at http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/089417.html. Minor change was needed for pmd codes to kick virtqueue since it assumes a busy polling backend. Test were done between localhost and guest. Testpmd (rxonly) in guest reports 2.4Mpps. Testpmd (txonly) repots about 2.1Mpps. It's not a complete implemention, here's what were missed: - Device Area - Driver Area - Descriptor indirection - Zerocopy may not be functional - Migration path is not tested - Vhost devices except for net - vIOMMU can not...

...ob/master/virtio-v1.1-packed-wd07.pdf . The code were tested with pmd implement by Jens at http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/089417.html. Minor change was needed for pmd codes to kick virtqueue since it assumes a busy polling backend. Test were done between localhost and guest. Testpmd (rxonly) in guest reports 2.4Mpps. Testpmd (txonly) repots about 2.1Mpps. It's not a complete implemention, here's what were missed: - Device Area - Driver Area - Descriptor indirection - Zerocopy may not be functional - Migration path is not tested - Vhost devices except for net - vIOMMU can not...

...d07.pdf > . The code were tested with pmd implement by Jens at > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/089417.html. Minor > change was needed for pmd codes to kick virtqueue since it assumes a > busy polling backend. > > Test were done between localhost and guest. Testpmd (rxonly) in guest > reports 2.4Mpps. Testpmd (txonly) repots about 2.1Mpps. How does this compare with the split ring design? > It's not a complete implemention, here's what were missed: > > - Device Area > - Driver Area > - Descriptor indirection > - Zerocopy may not be fun...

...g layout. The code were tested with pmd > implement by Jens at > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/089417.html. Minor change > was needed for pmd codes to kick virtqueue since it assumes a busy > polling backend. > > Test were done between localhost and guest. Testpmd (rxonly) in guest > reports 2.4Mpps. Testpmd (txonly) repots about 2.1Mpps. And how does it compare to older ring layout? > > Notes: The event suppression /indirect descriptor support is complied > test only because of lacked driver support. > > Changes from V1: > > - Re...

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

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:03:17PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: > Hi, > > This patch set implements packed ring support in virtio driver. > > A performance test between pktgen (pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh) > and DPDK vhost (testpmd/rxonly/vhost-PMD) has been done, I saw > ~30% performance gain in packed ring in this case. > > To make this patch set work with below patch set for vhost, > some hacks are needed to set the _F_NEXT flag in indirect > descriptors (this should be fixed in vhost): > > https://lkml.org...

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 06:03:17PM +0800, Tiwei Bie wrote: > Hi, > > This patch set implements packed ring support in virtio driver. > > A performance test between pktgen (pktgen_sample03_burst_single_flow.sh) > and DPDK vhost (testpmd/rxonly/vhost-PMD) has been done, I saw > ~30% performance gain in packed ring in this case. Thanks a lot, this is very exciting! Dave, given the holiday, attempts to wrap up the 1.1 spec and the patchset size I would very much appreciate a bit more time for review. Say until Nov 28? > To make this...

...| 3460766.857 | 3431042.5 | 3440722.286| > 2257970.769 | 3151268.385 | 3260150.538 | 3379383.846 | 3424028.846 | 3433384.308 | 3385635.231| 3406554.538 > > > > # Rx > > > # == > > The rx tests are done with pktgen injecting packets in tap interface, and testpmd in rxonly forward mode. Again, each > column is a different value of VHOST_NET_BATCH, and each row is base, +batching, and +buf_api: > > > > # pktgen results (pps) > > (Didn't record extreme cases like >512 bufs batching) > > 1 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 |...

...2527.786 | 3460766.857 | 3431042.5 | 3440722.286| > 2257970.769 | 3151268.385 | 3260150.538 | 3379383.846 | 3424028.846 | 3433384.308 | 3385635.231| 3406554.538 > >>> # Rx >>> # == > The rx tests are done with pktgen injecting packets in tap interface, and testpmd in rxonly forward mode. Again, each > column is a different value of VHOST_NET_BATCH, and each row is base, +batching, and +buf_api: > >>> # pktgen results (pps) > (Didn't record extreme cases like >512 bufs batching) > > 1 | 16 | 32 | 64 | 128 | 256 |...

...> * with testpmd and event_idx=on, batching+buf api perform similarly in > both directions. > > All of testpmd tests were performed with no linux bridge, just a > host's tap interface (<interface type='ethernet'> in xml), with a > testpmd txonly and another in rxonly forward mode, and using the > receiving side packets/bytes data. Guest's rps, xps and interrupts, > and host's vhost threads affinity were also tuned in each test to > schedule both testpmd and vhost in different processors. > > I will send the v10 RFC with the small changes...

...This RFC implement packed ring layout. The code were tested with pmd implement by Jens at http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/089417.html. Minor change was needed for pmd codes to kick virtqueue since it assumes a busy polling backend. Test were done between localhost and guest. Testpmd (rxonly) in guest reports 2.4Mpps. Testpmd (txonly) repots about 2.1Mpps. Notes: The event suppression /indirect descriptor support is complied test only because of lacked driver support. Changes from V1: - Refactor vhost used elem code to avoid open coding on used elem - Event suppression suppor...

...This RFC implement packed ring layout. The code were tested with pmd implement by Jens at http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2018-January/089417.html. Minor change was needed for pmd codes to kick virtqueue since it assumes a busy polling backend. Test were done between localhost and guest. Testpmd (rxonly) in guest reports 2.4Mpps. Testpmd (txonly) repots about 2.1Mpps. Notes: The event suppression /indirect descriptor support is complied test only because of lacked driver support. Changes from V1: - Refactor vhost used elem code to avoid open coding on used elem - Event suppression suppor...

The attached patch to the qemu emulation of the pcnet hardware fixes several problems. It will now only read and write a transmit or receive descriptor once. It will correctly handle transmitting frames with more than two fragments. It will discard oversize frames instead of corrupting memory. I have tested all the changes I have made and even seen an improvement in receive performance from