From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04984A32A4 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:35:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D5BE1D151; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:35:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD92B1D146 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:35:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9PHWvVs043484; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:35:54 -0400 Received: from ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (b.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.11]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vv3ck4xgn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 13:35:54 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9PHZ78Y023326; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:35:53 GMT Received: from b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.16]) by ppma03dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 2vqt48a9bp-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:35:53 +0000 Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.236]) by b03cxnp07029.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x9PHZq7M56230330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:35:52 GMT Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12022BE051; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:35:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC031BE04F; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:35:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from davids-mbp.usor.ibm.com (unknown [9.70.84.48]) by b03ledav005.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:35:51 +0000 (GMT) To: Tom Barbette , "dev@dpdk.org" References: From: David Christensen Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:35:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-25_09:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=540 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910250160 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance impact of "declaring" more CPU cores X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > The only useful observation we made is that when we are in a "bad case", > the LLC has more cache misses. Have you looked closely at the CPU topology on your platform, can you provide some examples here of what you're seeing? The hwloc package is very useful in visualizing how your logical cores map to CPU cache. There may be benefit is more strategically selecting the lcores you use to reduce LLC cache mssies. Dave