Here are a few references. Strictly speaking, DPDK and SR-IOV are orthogonal. DPDK is intended to facilitate cloud-native operation through hardware independence. SR-IOV presumes SR-IOV-compliant hardware. [1] Z. Xu, F. Liu, T. Wang, and H. Xu, “Demystifying the energy efficiency of Network Function Virtualization,” in 2016 IEEE/ACM 24th International Symposium on Quality of Service (IWQoS), Jun. 2016, pp. 1–10. DOI: 10.1109/IWQoS.2016.7590429. [2] S. Fu, J. Liu, and W. Zhu, “Multimedia Content Delivery with Network Function Virtualization: The Energy Perspective,” IEEE MultiMedia, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 38–47, 2017, ISSN: 1941-0166. DOI: 10.1109/MMUL.2017.3051514. [3] X. Li, W. Cheng, T. Zhang, F. Ren, and B. Yang, “Towards Power Efficient High Performance Packet I/O,” IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 981–996, April 2020, ISSN:1558-2183. DOI: 10.1109/TPDS.2019.2957746. [4] G. Li, D. Zhang, Y. Li, and K. Li, “Toward energy efficiency optimization of pktgen-DPDK for green network testbeds,” China Communications, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 199–207, November 2018, ISSN: 1673-5447. DOI: 10.1109/CC.2018.8543100. On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:45 PM Etienne-Victor Depasquale <edepa@ieee.org> wrote:
The way I saw, the questions induce the public to conclude that DPDK
ALWAYS has 100% CPU usage, which is not true.
I don't concur.
Every research paper I've read indicates that, regardless of whether it has packets to process or not, DPDK PMDs (poll-mode drivers) prevent the CPU from falling into an LPI (low-power idle).
When it has no packets to process, the PMD runs the processor in a polling loop that keeps utilization of the running core at 100%.
Cheers,
Etienne
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 12:33 PM Douglas Fischer <fischerdouglas@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm very happy to see interest in DPDK and power consumption.
But IMHO, the questions do not cover the actual reality of DPDK. That característic of "100% CPU" depends on several aspects, like: - How old are the hardware on DPDK. - What type of DPDK Instructions are made(Very Dynamic as Statefull CGNAT, ou Static ACLs?) - Using or not the measurements of DPDK Input/Drop/Fowarding. - CPU Affinity done according to the demand of traffic - SR-IOV (sharing resources) on DPDK.
The way I saw, the questions induce the public to conclude that DPDK ALWAYS has 100% CPU usage, which is not true.
Em seg., 22 de fev. de 2021 às 04:30, Etienne-Victor Depasquale < edepa@ieee.org> escreveu:
Hello folks,
I've just followed a thread regarding use of CGNAT and noted a suggestion (regarding DANOS) that includes use of DPDK.
As I'm interested in the breadth of adoption of DPDK, and as I'm a researcher into energy and power efficiency, I'd love to hear your feedback on your use of power consumption control by DPDK.
I've drawn up a bare-bones, 2-question survey at this link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J886DPY.
Responses have been set to anonymous.
Cheers,
Etienne
-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
-- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação
-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale
-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale