Re: dpdk Tx falling short

[Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>]

On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 17:36:08 +0000
"Lombardo, Ed" <Ed.Lombardo@netscout.com> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> I saw your response to more mempools and cache behavior.
> 
> I have a goal to support 2x100G next, and if I can't get 10G with DPDK then something is seriously wrong.
> 
> Should I build the dpdk static libraries with LTO?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> 
> Sent: Friday, July 4, 2025 10:50 AM
> To: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@arknetworks.am>
> Cc: Lombardo, Ed <Ed.Lombardo@netscout.com>; users <users@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: dpdk Tx falling short
> 
> External Email: This message originated outside of NETSCOUT. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 15:44:50 +0400 (+04)
> Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@arknetworks.am> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ed,
> > 
> > You say there is only one mempool. Why?
> > Have you tried using dedicated mempools, one per each port pair (0,2), (3,4)?
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2025, Lombardo, Ed wrote:  
> 
> More mempools can make cache behavior worse not better.

Your best bet is to use tools like perf to profile cache misses.