Thanks, I’ve tested this patch and can confirm that it fixes the problem.
I didn’t do any performance comparison but at least with high packet rate rte_eth_rx_burst() should already return close to BATCH_SIZE packets, so the performance hit shouldn’t be that big. -Matias On 9 May 2019, at 14:24, Rao, Nikhil <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 5:33 PM To: Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Honnappa Nagarahalli <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; nd <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] eventdev: sw rx adapter enqueue caching On 7 May 2019, at 15:01, Mattias Rönnblom <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 2019-05-07 13:12, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: Hi, The SW eventdev rx adapter has an internal enqueue buffer 'rx_adapter- event_enqueue_buffer', which stores packets received from the NIC until at least BATCH_SIZE (=32) packets have been received before enqueueing them to eventdev. For example in case of validation testing, where often a small number of specific test packets is sent to the NIC, this causes a lot of problems. One would always have to transmit at least BATCH_SIZE test packets before anything can be received from eventdev. Additionally, if the rx packet rate is slow this also adds a considerable amount of additional delay. Looking at the rx adapter API and sw implementation code there doesn’t seem to be a way to disable this internal caching. In my opinion this “functionality" makes testing sw rx adapter so cumbersome that either the implementation should be modified to enqueue the cached packets after a while (some performance penalty) or there should be some method to disable caching. Any opinions how this issue could be fixed? At the minimum, I would think there should be a compile time option. From a use case perspective, I think it falls under latency vs throughput considerations. If there is a latency sensitive application, it might not want to wait till 32 packets are received. From what I understood from Matias Elo and also after a quick glance in the code, the unlucky packets will be buffered indefinitely, in case the system goes idle. This is totally unacceptable (both in production and validation), in my opinion, and should be filed as a bug. Indeed, this is what happens. I’ll create a bug report to track this issue. I have posted a patch for this issue http://patchwork.dpdk.org/patch/53350/ Please let me know your comments. Thanks, Nikhil
