From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dumitru.ceara@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
 [209.85.223.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DE12C16
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:07:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id d2so33478217iof.0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=C2/5aaMFK/2Qi0N4kh8tDRxR52f1EMP1RgJC2XO0JFE=;
 b=xwvJ3+9uh/HhF3/wOsySWnXMZRZR9kEhFOf0R7J9Rgp0wLlg2hAy8GXGfTOSeDtFga
 2SzCMRs0y+7yMwFU0OfUXhxrVJmusi4I5bmh4rR1JR8CXTjrmuRJXsrVXvIFmr1OEHlS
 ndOY5GrPJt4p42/EpRagfSQ7iaVcLfFe2KpF4AFUth7Uw4GLfsczzBqv8abnl/1bAZp7
 mV5jL4kbgWJMnHrmvV9uTVA+BdwH9MtsWRPqi/wE4HuWecoJ3uG5Qm3AHDsvFGZo+yPO
 u4pHOrAXlO4aCL/n6c/7I8hq6aICYskwuxiIUPNtFIo0FOOS9sgpV5wU0i+FLqwzryks
 pkVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=C2/5aaMFK/2Qi0N4kh8tDRxR52f1EMP1RgJC2XO0JFE=;
 b=UOXU9CUlGJyi8jvSxo+PF+f5e2Cg9XQoLtVxg3HB2swavVcMkaJpb/f6YvHoqW+/cc
 rWcDeUVYNbC9WeutD+brTPV0cg1fWQ3fkL+1siDLhpZXCdfJPC9fc406/oLJOnuF3KZY
 i3h6S0LXKX3mj/rZ7inrLXu1R6+gTCWM+Cohb3Wv30Hsq3+6miZBemR9tNrfP+bFpDHi
 LQP4I5Qyq0dudGnzXvS4WziX5XpwWT5zjtlALcsw5AA7XsiLlTPRKHhk7VhfS/GufCty
 tW9k/kSo4izCVi9Mpuz9ttjYOj8+/qUfU8Z4z/ZQyAaOVpq2kvfrtaQkzOCqFnHr0wkR
 Qv6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJfoSu+foxGedove1Kz7Xqq4FHVj/FBRm83DPgTMPGLXGKMiqrBHwpBDXFDmHFPLxjYFTsQV4X/UXzfDg==
X-Received: by 10.107.172.194 with SMTP id v185mr23479004ioe.5.1465826877186; 
 Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.20.197 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Take Ceara <dumitru.ceara@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 16:07:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKKV4w-FYcK8XLv-HKUBJghNr-Fpsm-_EUqPSCb09zu2aZwxvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: [dpdk-dev]  Performance hit - NICs on different CPU sockets
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:07:58 -0000

Hi,

I'm reposting here as I didn't get any answers on the dpdk-users mailing list.

We're working on a stateful traffic generator (www.warp17.net) using
DPDK and we would like to control two XL710 NICs (one on each socket)
to maximize CPU usage. It looks that we run into the following
limitation:

http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/linux_gsg/nic_perf_intel_platform.html
section 7.2, point 3

We completely split memory/cpu/NICs across the two sockets. However,
the performance with a single CPU and both NICs on the same socket is
better.
Why do all the NICs have to be on the same socket, is there a
driver/hw limitation?

Thanks,
Dumitru Ceara