Are you sure that this is the fastest way to interface OVS-DPDK to a container? But, even if it is not, optimizations are welcome.
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:50:44AM +0800, Gao Zhenyu wrote: > Here is the backgroud: > > I tried to consume ovs-dpdk(ovs-2.7.0, dpdk-16.11) for container-app and > here is the topologic > > > netserver > |-------------------| > | | > | container | > |--------veth----| > | > | |--------------------| > |-------veth-| dpdk-ovs > | netperf > | > | |-------------------| > > |---------dpdk----| | > bare-metal | > > | > --------------------- > > | | > > | | > > physical-nic--------------------------------------------physical-nic > > But the performance is worse than regular OVS and then I found sendmsg cost > 96% cpu cycles. Some packets were dropped due to insufficient cpu. > So I tried to replace sendmsg with sendmmsg, it shows some performance > improvement like: > > netperf -H 10.100.85.242 -t TCP_STREAM -l 60 > 335.98Mb(sendmsg + ovs-dpdk) ----> 663Mb(sendmmsg + ovs-dpdk) > > (I turn off the veth's tx offloading because the dpdk would not do > tx-checksum which introduces tcp-checksum error. ethtool -K eth1 tx off) > > > Thanks > Zhenyu Gao > > > 2017-05-31 23:41 GMT+08:00 Ben Pfaff <[email protected]>: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 09:50:09AM +0800, Gao Zhenyu wrote: > > > BTW, I would like to submit another patch to use sendmmsg to replace > > > sendmsg. Sendmmsg get more benefit on throughput(my draft testing show > > 100% > > > improvment). Do you think it is doable? > > > > I'm surprised that it makes a big difference, because I tested a similar > > change years ago and it did not. However, let's assume that it does. > > In that case, of course we'd accept a change. It would be important to > > retain support for older kernels and non-Linux kernels. > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
