Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2019-09-11 09:42, Yonghong Song wrote: >> I am not an expert in XDP testing. Toke, Björn, could you give some >> suggestions what to test for XDP performance here? > > I ran the "xdp_rxq_info" sample with and without Sami's patch: Thanks for doing this! > $ sudo ./xdp_rxq_info --dev enp134s0f0 --action XDP_DROP > > Before: > > Running XDP on dev:enp134s0f0 (ifindex:6) action:XDP_DROP options:no_touch > XDP stats CPU pps issue-pps > XDP-RX CPU 20 23923874 0 > XDP-RX CPU total 23923874 > > RXQ stats RXQ:CPU pps issue-pps > rx_queue_index 20:20 23923878 0 > rx_queue_index 20:sum 23923878 > > After Sami's patch: > > Running XDP on dev:enp134s0f0 (ifindex:6) action:XDP_DROP options:no_touch > XDP stats CPU pps issue-pps > XDP-RX CPU 20 22998700 0 > XDP-RX CPU total 22998700 > > RXQ stats RXQ:CPU pps issue-pps > rx_queue_index 20:20 22998705 0 > rx_queue_index 20:sum 22998705 > > > So, roughly ~4% for this somewhat naive scenario. Or (1/22998700 - 1/23923874) * 10**9 == 1.7 nanoseconds of overhead. I guess that is not *too* bad; but it's still chipping away at performance; anything we could do to lower the overhead? -Toke
