[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-19 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Bruce, > Can you perhaps also include the specific testpmd parameter you used in your > tests, as they can have a large effect on performance. On my Sandy Bridge > platform here are the testpmd flags I use for iofwd testing: > > "--rxd=128 --rxfreet=32 --rxpt=8 --rxht=8 --rxwt=0 --txd=512

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-19 Thread Richardson, Bruce
> -Original Message- > From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.matz at 6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:31 AM > To: Richardson, Bruce; Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in > a bitfield >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-19 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Jeff, On 05/09/2014 06:11 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote: > I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the > patches have settled. Here are some performance numbers I've measured with the TSO patches. The test platform is: +---+ +---+ |

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-19 Thread Richardson, Bruce
> -Original Message- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MATZ > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 8:27 AM > To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in > a bitfield > >

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-15 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Konstantin, On 05/14/2014 04:07 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote: > Apart from performance impact, one more concern: > As I know, theoretical limit for PA on Intel is 52 bits. > I understand that these days no-one using more than 48 bits and it probably > would stay like that for next few years.

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-09 Thread Olivier MATZ
Hi Jeff, Thank you for your comment. On 05/09/2014 05:39 PM, Shaw, Jeffrey B wrote: > have you tested this patch to see if there is a negative impact to > performance? Yes, but not with testpmd. I passed our internal non-regression performance tests and it shows no difference (or below the

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-09 Thread Olivier Matz
The physical address is never greater than (1 << 48) = 256 TB. We can win 2 bytes in the mbuf structure by merging the physical address and the buffer length in the same bitfield. Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz --- lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.c | 3 ++- lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h | 7 --- 2 files

[dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf: merge physaddr and buf_len in a bitfield

2014-05-09 Thread Shaw, Jeffrey B
I agree, we should wait for comments then test the performance when the patches have settled. -Original Message- From: Olivier MATZ [mailto:olivier.m...@6wind.com] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 9:06 AM To: Shaw, Jeffrey B; dev at dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH RFC 05/11] mbuf