From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC7BA00E6 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:50:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E6E31B48C; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:50:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-oln040092069033.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.92.69.33]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4E64CA9 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 12:50:39 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=rxytcza4PyBvEjVpI1q3Bw6CmuY1u6w2sszgqHzpAB8=; b=Jk4WVasquBZJNZmgPNfW3zgqxdQWInKZ4HnA5ZifRGaJPSBab+KZtIqhariIGleP7/MPks5Wn80DlsgvSmVCx6i0fdCBAAj7QnKaJ76izRpPUOujQFQB/TbJYMaERDJ4W6K88JadlLnPMD+kVPezxYOFtqPD2gHoRDYpjkb6TU2WxlKXasHP1DovZ/SjiZhylu5FyLDT8x6Cit4l82Tsb9wwCDR9TjvuR/bRvJsMIDfR6kIPRPmDD+UFQb4qoRli42DuZ++Xp0erUCpZONg3JWlcZzQXIaRWv/HZkZg2vjpELj80H+vIZtaxbYrIc69w0N5CGtjBcL9erhWuESnLdA== Received: from VE1EUR02FT032.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.12.58) by VE1EUR02HT187.eop-EUR02.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.13.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1730.9; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:50:38 +0000 Received: from DB7PR06MB4827.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.152.12.54) by VE1EUR02FT032.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.12.129) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.1730.9 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:50:38 +0000 Received: from DB7PR06MB4827.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2880:3922:8b80:c7a9]) by DB7PR06MB4827.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::2880:3922:8b80:c7a9%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1730.013; Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:50:38 +0000 From: Paul T To: "tomas.jansky@flowmon.com" , "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] X710 DA2 (2x10G) performance 64B packet Thread-Index: AQHU39vLqflED5egHECF4rNso/elcw== Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 11:50:38 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:17233BFF9D88F8A3FC20291366FD23F6F98EA62EC7CF4020CCA3265D2D78FBEF; UpperCasedChecksum:C6D9B2AED4269ECC67074FF4FB21E93AC76FC74BDBA85AD07DF48D13DF489CE3; SizeAsReceived:6716; Count:42 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [3cMr38Gve+OXgiItBDB+lRgp1GEPz4lu] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-incomingheadercount: 42 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(20181119110)(201702061078)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031323274)(2017031324274)(2017031322404)(1601125500)(1603101475)(1701031045); SRVR:VE1EUR02HT187; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VE1EUR02HT187: x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: bc3i8gAAFMcoaObyRRPZisuZATpUWL955rAqk7WIsCbLWq4wUEkfKysMd/OdPxhJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bed96760-8a1d-4964-a83f-08d6adf36fc9 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Mar 2019 11:50:38.2928 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1EUR02HT187 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] X710 DA2 (2x10G) performance 64B packet X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" Hi Tomas, I would isolate the CPUs in which the dpdk threads are running from the lin= ux schedular. The low packet drop at 64B makes me thing its context switch= ing happen on the core because of the linux scheduler. Use the following command in the linux command line params in your grub con= fig: isolcpus=3Dcpus to isolate, e.g. 1,3,4 or 1-4 Regards Paul Message: 3 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 10:53:34 +0100 From: Tom?? J?nsk? To: users@dpdk.org Subject: [dpdk-users] X710 DA2 (2x10G) performance 64B packets Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8" Hello DPDK users, I am having an issue concerning the performance of X710 DA2 (2x10G) NIC when using testpmd (and also l2fwd) application on both ports. HW and SW parameters: CPUs: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz x16 Disabled hyperthreading. All used lcores and ports are on the same NUMA node (0). Hugepages: 1024x 2MB on the NUMA node 0. RAM: 64 GB DPDK version: 18.05.1 Modue: IGB UIO GCC version: 4.8.5 When using testpmd application only on one port: ./testpmd -b 0000:04:00.0 -n 4 --lcore=3D0@0,2@2 -- --socket-num=3D0 --nb-cores=3D1 --nb-ports=3D1 --numa --forward-mode=3Drxonly 14.63 Mpps (64B packet length) - 0.01% packets dropped When using testmpd on both ports: ./testpmd -n 4 --lcore=3D0@0,2@2,4@4 -- --socket-num=3D0 --nb-cores=3D2 --nb-ports=3D2 --numa --forward-mode=3Drxonly 28.08 Mpps (64B packet length) - 3.47% packets dropped Does anybody have an explanation why am I experiencing this performance drop? Any suggestion would be much appreciated. Thank you Tomas