Bump batch size from uint8_t to uint16_t#797
Merged
Conversation
zakird
approved these changes
Feb 28, 2024
Member
zakird
left a comment
zakird
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds good. I think this was pretty arbitrary on our part originally.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I'd like to suggest to promote batch size to a uint16_t. I am testing on 10GbE hardware on which batch size somewhere above 256 is currently a sweet spot (with netmap); the current uint8_t limits me to 255. While there might be other perf improvements with bigger impact than what I see from batch size tuning, I see no real downside in allowing for a larger range of batch sizes.
Tested on macOS Sonoma and FreeBSD 14.0.