I agree with Suraj on the same. @Bev : Were you trying to use rte_eth_tx_buffer function as part of just an experiment ? As per your email you already got performance with the rte_eth_tx_burst function.
Regards Manish On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 1:42 PM Suraj R Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi bev, > If my understanding is right, rte_eth_tx_burst transmits output packets > immediately with a specified number of packets. > While, 'rte_eth_tx_buffer' buffers the packet in the queue of the port, > the packets would be transmitted only when buffer is or > rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush is called. > Since you are buffering packets one by one and then you are calling flush, > this may have contributed to the delay. > Thanks and Regards > Suraj R Gupta > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 10:53 PM Bev SCHWARTZ <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I am writing a bridge using DPDK, where I have traffic read from one port > > transmitted to the other. Here is the core of the program, based on > > basicfwd.c. > > > > while (!force_quit) { > > nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(rx_port, rx_queue, bufs, BURST_SIZE); > > for (i = 0; i < nb_rx; i++) { > > /* inspect packet */ > > } > > nb_tx = rte_eth_tx_burst(tx_port, tx_queue, bufs, nb_rx); > > for (i = nb_tx; i < nb_rx; i++) { > > rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]); > > } > > } > > > > (A bunch of error checking and such left out for brevity.) > > > > This worked great, I got bandwidth equivalent to using a Linux Bridge. > > > > I then tried using tx buffers instead. (Initialization code left out for > > brevity.) Here is the new loop. > > > > while (!force_quit) { > > nb_rx = rte_eth_rx_burst(rx_port, rx_queue, bufs, BURST_SIZE); > > for (i = 0; i < nb_rx; i++) { > > /* inspect packet */ > > rte_eth_tx_buffer(tx_port, tx_queue, tx_buffer, bufs[i]); > > } > > rte_eth_tx_buffer_flush(tx_port, tx_queue, tx_buffer); > > } > > > > (Once again, error checking left out for brevity.) > > > > I am running this on 8 cores, each core has its own loop. (tx_buffer is > > created for each core.) > > > > If I have well balanced traffic across the cores, then my performance > goes > > down, about 5% or so. If I have unbalanced traffic such as all traffic > > coming from a single flow, my performance goes down 80% from about 10 gbs > > to 2gbs. > > > > I want to stress that the ONLY thing that changed in this code is > changing > > how I transmit packets. Everything else is the same. > > > > Any idea why this would cause such a degradation in bit rate? > > > > -Bev > > > > -- > Thanks and Regards > Suraj R Gupta > -- Thanks Manish Kumar
