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: 


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


--
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