From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f173.google.com (mail-qk0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404D38E82 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:52:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id s70so5828910qks.13 for ; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=bCK6vaomH5CGk0QLZ4n0tnD3M3D4HDzvEaPasY/UorM=; b=uBp/1ynEkWiqqUbSirarzcmcCeybYQCA/Ua4NdvxyrKau7k3hq3kgmRPyjPBWvPpxv XtVQ9q1JZ+K2MDC1LdXH2ejGnzpeYecfswLygzCmqLZnlf5WV7ZUhIuujq08lAY9qDpR 6V3SNWB27EvwAZZD/samjGre0gV+FK4HGyqVrRnqn+TLXc4nn2V6ZpCTcRGzCe+rmWdC ZAwTWfvLJjBvksDrpfFv1XuOmhwqWFqYs+duNPcjum4JqAf/wu/dVfUDf91jzDbYZpsD UDHVgkh+bB/jZSNETo+nfHks1sqKOv/wHllpleDDzZweA2vcq9FGEKWU6H9hOJprUuHq 3+zw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=bCK6vaomH5CGk0QLZ4n0tnD3M3D4HDzvEaPasY/UorM=; b=SO2KcKRDiahmXKO52h9eE2jVEq6xkPHG3MuGQw5UES7DS0aRFyF05R5QEqFNCl5Tf2 heRtD9UIZdBuY91gI8EOgg2ymSpSxI3c6atPeKHsIz9/3B3x718e8rH5HKQHu+wiIz41 edfhdP6Ct0RbxvMcwwejpsXoA9EllK46s3hk4hafgtWLj1EYmiipv+J90sfwOkdiOw8U n8IQ7h9RwK0rQapH2+Uwpv8zYvn51nNA0dLCrwjJp/ykAfq/sx4OKcfvdCeiRzbB69fh KRcHXF7JHV8z4dk1/S0gpCfNv5r75ueKyyw2VkQ/Qb+4UTZNhP2s6IE7QrrHcFf8pkSU vc8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCBRjgvn4RifUDyQqItquRPUy9u/aou+pVF6WlONEReP3g5lHgo 8eZtKH2rcBv1nEoJAAfPkgrQT5cdl8VkG+79n6s= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+FMuT46VzCPQqUkRrh/pX2B9Hvapwxfc/Se/lKeomOfaWljtCNE9JFlMd/maZItxTeok0nR6u4RZakZaIIoJg= X-Received: by 10.55.175.6 with SMTP id y6mr3398680qke.58.1523991142699; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.48.206 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Apr 2018 11:52:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E6300C162@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <86228AFD5BCD8E4EBFD2B90117B5E81E6300C162@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Kevin Wilson Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 21:52:22 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Liu, Yong" Cc: "dts@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [dts] L2FW fails with 'Not enough cores for performance!!!' (framework/etgen, py) X-BeenThere: dts@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: test suite reviews and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 18:52:23 -0000 Hi, Thanks for you quick reply, Yong Liu! First, I want to mention that I am running the tests on two hosts, and none of them is a VM. Second, as I mention in the mail, when I ran: cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i processor I see 4 cores, thus: processor : 0 processor : 1 processor : 2 processor : 3 Doesn't this indicate 4 physical processors? Another information I want to add is the output of lspcu: lscpu Architecture: x86_64 CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 4 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-3 Thread(s) per core: 1 Core(s) per socket: 4 Socket(s): 1 NUMA node(s): 1 Vendor ID: GenuineIntel CPU family: 6 Model: 45 Stepping: 7 CPU MHz: 1228.312 BogoMIPS: 4799.79 Virtualization: VT-x L1d cache: 32K L1i cache: 32K L2 cache: 256K L3 cache: 10240K NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-3 And running: /work/src/dpdk-17.11/usertools/cpu_layout.py Gives: ====================================================================== Core and Socket Information (as reported by '/sys/devices/system/cpu') ====================================================================== cores = [0, 1, 2, 3] sockets = [0] Socket 0 -------- Core 0 [0] Core 1 [1] Core 2 [2] Core 3 [3] This this info indicate 4 physical cores ? Second question is: should the tester have exactly the same number of cores, sockets and threads as the DUT? I don't think I saw such a requirement in the docs, but maybe I am wrong. Regards, Kevin On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 4:34 AM, Liu, Yong wrote: > Hi Kevin, > DTS will try to allocate two physical cores for DPDK based pktgen. Meanwhile will skip first physical cores for system usage. > I'm not sure whether the four cores on your server are all physical cores. If not, may met such issue. > > Thanks, > Marvin > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dts [mailto:dts-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Wilson >> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 7:47 PM >> To: dts@dpdk.org >> Subject: [dts] L2FW fails with 'Not enough cores for performance!!!' >> (framework/etgen, py) >> >> Hi, >> I am trying to run DTS L2FW performance between a tester and a DUT using >> DTS >> (with scapy, not with IXIA) and I am getting the following error: >> TestL2fwd: Test Case test_perf_l2fwd_performance Result FAILED: 'Not >> enough cores for performance!!!' >> and the DTS app terminates. >> I located the error, and it is from packet_generator() method of >> framework/etgen.py >> What can be the reason for this ? >> >> Further details: >> The execution.cfg file I am using is: >> [Execution1] >> crbs=IP adderss of DUT >> drivername=igb_uio >> test_suites= >> l2fwd >> targets= >> x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc >> parameters=nic_type=niantic:perf=true >> >> I have 2 machine: host A is the tester, and host B is the DUT. >> Both have IXGBE nics, and each of these 2 nics have 2 ports. >> On the tester, the PCI ids of the IXGBEs are 0000:04:00.0 and 0000:04:00.1 >> On the DUT, the PCI ids of the IXGBEs are 0000:06:00.0 and 0000:06:00.1 >> The IXGBEs are 8086:158b on both hosts >> >> I have two configuration files: >> conf/ports.cfg: >> [DUT IP] >> ports = >> pci=0000:06:00.0,peer=0000:04:00.0; >> pci=0000:06:00.1,peer=0000:04:00.1; >> >> >> conf/crb.cfg: >> >> [DUT IP] >> dut_ip=DUT IP >> dut_user=root >> dut_passwd=dut_password >> os=linux >> tester_ip=TESTER IP >> tester_passwd=tester_password >> channels=4 >> bypass_core0=False >> >> Both hosts have 4 cores (as is shown by "cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -i >> processor") >> I am running DTS by: >> ./dts --git=v17.11 --config-file=myConfig.cfg >> >> >> Regards, >> Kevin