> Here is the comparison between multi-buffer and jumbo frames that I did > for ZC ice driver. Configured MTU was 8192 as this is the frame size for > aligned mode when working with huge pages. I am presenting plain numbers > over here from xdpsock. > > Mbuf, packet size = 8192 - XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM > 885,705pps - rxdrop frame_size=4096 > 806,307pps - l2fwd frame_size=4096 > 877,989pps - rxdrop frame_size=2048 > 773,331pps - l2fwd frame_size=2048 > > Jumbo, packet size = 8192 - XDP_PACKET_HEADROOM > 893,530pps - rxdrop frame_size=8192 > 841,860pps - l2fwd frame_size=8192 Thanks so much for sharing these initial results! Do you have similar measurements for ~9000 byte packets in unaligned mode? We typically receive packets larger than 8192 bytes. > > Kal might say that multi-buffer numbers are imaginary as these patches > were never shown to the public ;) but now that we have extensive test > suite I am fixing some last issues that stand out, so we are asking for > some more patience over here... overall i was expecting that they will be > much worse when compared to jumbo frames, but then again i believe this > implementation is not ideal and can be improved. Nevertheless, jumbo > frames support has its value. You made me chuckle ;-) Any measurements people can provide are helpful, even if they must be taken with a grain of salt. ;-). How much of your test suite can be upstreamed in the future? My assumption was the difference should be measurable, at least you have confirmed that. :-)
