From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B08A00C3 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:06:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A5140691; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:06:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pj1-f47.google.com (mail-pj1-f47.google.com [209.85.216.47]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63FA54067E for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 18:06:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pj1-f47.google.com with SMTP id t17so13249048pjo.3 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=2jiFrENNccFIxJZWogdUcOJojx5rNXfW0ChYops9Vnw=; b=vViCc9zdjnIQs6GGTKs9Xn3exS66Gr5gL4UqMx1YfVGSmbZm0Rbs/NPM2cDbJUun78 tJvYzlTISVKhDpdfR3Xe7hqCp3eIZSq3/xZSu5T9lb2bNLyCgMoVxshF3TudC2zaaikm gXIJE94dD65H4zBxz/Xf+BfQNIqX2EtiLHDL5xwE7rMl201Lr0XLK8RQQz1K0n5dcdIK jpPwn81oif7jCizd2E7mkG3nO6KWxHJy+9W6e3z0jxcP3BnDTR/821Em5BA76WuhPuyT GlrHzb5B6zOMMksUbt4FqBboHln9oJsgAROAV2BL1r5NI+guTGxD0DBm0xBmhY+uK3F7 YSFQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=2jiFrENNccFIxJZWogdUcOJojx5rNXfW0ChYops9Vnw=; b=YWtRD2hB2VCq2o2aYZ7r2uCQB97un8ZjHQoAhcme4foJOzAQMpYIcBaz5xwCV2/Srz R/2ah8tyjNpTJgJDSXH/HBXp5p4Yh0FAHXvMwMDrUCpVSm+wKDPG4wRP+2oHWV7qXOk1 u1lp8gi81OMifzMPVxgTaBPjSvBfheGFFBS/oATvo7o2fQdWck6ZCqACjQxwOSB742uF 5JJtYkRvy7Z3td5k7zhMEBZHKoebGQ6rklCFBPKJeAtzhtIxngmDu0mCb+EUzmi4MAPH gbUxqn5UpRzAMtF8rigZ3QsPlXNUX//UbTk8HoK/rWMPFFGl7YpcwwIunTOT31LNCA86 LMWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pnvbOC4Q+s6FbZwuGz1g0czJap+kYeBY0bVsS/nGfU8QRJFiuTW N+1zPDMldv/Zxhhjy3Au1ipLlw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf5ORJ7aNK+1syF1ciCptJ/9LRrlSizj0IPVidJ9HCd3qTCk0EVrIFVA8a3jDuN6+zDVyU2FJw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7d0d:b0:1fa:b51d:8d83 with SMTP id g13-20020a17090a7d0d00b001fab51d8d83mr39516592pjl.169.1669741561305; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:06:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.local (204-195-120-218.wavecable.com. [204.195.120.218]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t8-20020a17090a024800b00210125b789dsm1591186pje.54.2022.11.29.09.06.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:06:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:05:59 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Sun Yalou Cc: users@dpdk.org Subject: Re: 82599ES 10-Gigabit NIC cannot at 10G speed for a long time Message-ID: <20221129090559.5d5fe72a@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <8eaf46e68801e.ec7ca303cc0d3@bupt.edu.cn> References: <8eaf46e68801e.ec7ca303cc0d3@bupt.edu.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 04:42:06 +0000 Sun Yalou wrote: > Hi there,I'm developing a custom virtual switch using OVS-DPDK(v19.11.10). > In order to achieve 10Gbit/s, I modified the OVS pmd mode from > run-to-completion to pipeline. I used 1 thread as rx thread, 4 threads as > worker thread and 1 thread as tx thread. it's a load balance archiecture. > I found the forwarding rate can reach 10Gbit/s in first 2 minite, and then > drop to 5Gbit/s . My traffic generator keeps send packets at 10G rate. I > debugged and found that packet loss occurred in `rte_eth_tx_burst`, then it > invoke `ixgbe_xmit_pkts_vec` -> `ixgbe_xmit_fixed_burst_vec` , in > `ixgbe_xmit_fixed_burst_vec`it should be `txq->nb_tx_free` < `nb_pkts`, it > means there is not enough TX descriptor to be allocated. > I have tried increasing socket-mem when starting program and reducing the > size of batch sent, neither worked. I wonder if i am missing something > important? This question has been bugging me for weeks. > Does anyone know this issue? Thanks, BR, Yalou Curious why you think pipeline is faster, since processing same packet repeatedly by multiple cores causes cache misses.