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 0B2D9A00C3 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:26:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8539940DFB; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:26:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ed1-f49.google.com (mail-ed1-f49.google.com [209.85.208.49]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAD640156 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 10:09:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ed1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 29so30349906edv.2 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:09:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date; bh=bmiFYjw6Ke+l/Vp2tYXT/C3DBhftjmf26yznMKdre18=; b=m1RT0fmixsvphnzdKo8W7Glukalvqg1rRVNORoUJ4fFjZGGNecle0RsedsguomDNj3 d586Y9TWPR3nciARRj0aSaOIQ8fGAEAz4ibO/LM/6o5tqUGQdF/VUtqVZjxhHuCMk7m+ LojPUDbnz+wmpDb9k+o+zVLgH1lqvgn++Hv0XyD695R1s8ZAqq+rr8323TrYm3IHg8L7 4QzJy94eaHsm8s2nLqx5MVFiKAbsbzFvQEt0Epk28MH8eAlK15YnR3mjDneln+T2XIBL n3vkTAE6yxH1VOvkXX27akiGQramRofrOx9NeDXkTVlrNrCfOSvTcr2pOOECht3B3BnR BVMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=bmiFYjw6Ke+l/Vp2tYXT/C3DBhftjmf26yznMKdre18=; b=zZhXXgVmGgR5dhYapm4fCfJOxbMnh4X3yRoV9v6CbOyOSosD5Rluwtfa3fL1IOCOgL ikgkjeZGwN6MDdTGKy18nxqlf+5OYHhkHrjTpVFpxFBe/xjT+YBhhYlXsonbtidemLkn 8AyFgsdbE7JNlegqsfp6mQ7RDWcT68+msRK+o8gv7mLm3gb0Xw6COJ27XXD9GEDRwwPP 8O4tlRfmY4tiVL74195vlA3TA/cXoxq9IOtsZj00jJpn98cvXOmu595FCst8dlP5Sbu9 U/RSavJlmy7b0bTxspki9nw9vD0wi5A7j6cKYiGwvPfG+u8YxFYmbpBLpwVM/mSNAbLL ydqA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf05FFwvZanUZIX98unAVfo4TcRFgBLNpanMYUw4upVZ5FGEyHON urYu/TnipeN3idSChGV2dXatMCuA24X0HGIuXbR6GEUS0n8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5bx4UilFOhWw9Chr8QCfjdhLKt4L4ldXL7j19XwQBFybFZ4OaKOivg/8tInhiVxIn+e5wI5LWXvPk+8p7SUjg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:b85:b0:44e:dad7:3e24 with SMTP id cf5-20020a0564020b8500b0044edad73e24mr3076477edb.264.1663315762986; Fri, 16 Sep 2022 01:09:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: SG Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 13:39:11 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Low throughput on 10G NIC card using DPDK L2fwd To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000033c16705e8c6e177" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:26:34 +0200 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 --00000000000033c16705e8c6e177 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Team, I have a dual port 10Gbps "X710 SFP + 1572" NIC card, created 2 VFs on both the ports. dpdk l2fwd application is able to achieve throughput of ~9Gbps when using VFs on same port i.e. VF0 receives the external traffic and sends out on VF1 belonging to the same port (flow in green) However when l2fwd (app1) receives the external traffic on one port and sends it to another application(another instance of l2fwd) on different port, the throughput drops down to 3.4Gbps, i.e. VF0 receives the external traffic and sends it to VF2 on a different port (flow in red).. DPDK application(app1) on VF0 is able to send the traffic but the application(app2) is not able to receive all the traffic ; it can only receive max of 3.4Gbps. There is a packet loss when inter VF communication happens. But no error stats in dpdk are increased. Is this happening at PCI level ? Please help me understand the potential problem and suggest any pointers on how to proceed further. Thanks, Somesh --00000000000033c16705e8c6e177 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Team,


I have a dual po= rt 10Gbps "X710 SFP + 1572" NIC card, created 2 VFs on both t= he ports.

dpdk l2fwd application is = able to achieve throughput of ~9Gbps when using VFs on same port i.e. VF0 r= eceives the external traffic and sends out on VF1 belonging to the same por= t (flow in green)

=C2=A0

<= p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"line-height:1.38;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);m= argin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">=C2=A0

However when l2fwd (app1) receives= the external traffic on one port and sends it to another application(anoth= er instance of l2fwd) on different port, the throughput drops down to 3.4Gb= ps, i.e. VF0 receives the external traffic and sends it to VF2 on a differe= nt port (flow in red)..

=C2=A0<= /p>

DPDK application(app1) on VF0 is able to se= nd the traffic but the application(app2) is not able to receive all the tra= ffic ; it can only receive max of 3.4Gbps. There is a packet loss when inte= r VF communication happens. But no error stats in dpdk are increased.

=C2=A0

Is this happening at PCI level ?

= Please help me understand the potential problem and suggest any pointers on= how to proceed further.


=

Thanks,

Somesh

--00000000000033c16705e8c6e177--