From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com (mail-ob0-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2155323 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:27:03 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id jq7so187454941obb.0 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:27:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qwilt-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UimnlzwVf1tDlbDhYHr7DwB9ACXneY7DGA+Z4YLGZ+M=; b=njVFKE13cfijwVcdaynJ53l+muTZWoJ7zGd2X56qH8WQTNGzAJmrwFTEPDcizHha3n z2d5kDwWG0lkmVzn2ad9kjzUdA4eW3xFnh6I9UtQL0i0AxLXAqwSFB4fVsAA9jQEMm3Z j05bZcrs5Fb2od763pInOKOQ66Ppc1zk6KfVWUqpP8Den7i9rt+aLMu06QPXt4L83UPO sZpfR/FIGcuO57MRHZ9zeFcx+rNRvumsevkWhV3JTK5co2FU/genGyEKBQmRHga9gqpS X2qoIVUOzmL8J2W2gBelGRnO0hQHs+/t5k+PuAwS+6OpCn92s9FL5sq+wky1XcAF+gwA JnRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UimnlzwVf1tDlbDhYHr7DwB9ACXneY7DGA+Z4YLGZ+M=; b=lgjiCVP8iimNeFrvPxdmvyKUL3vHOxS1uDI4SLBHkO4IHDl+Fkcreo9110eIL8iiZp bQtsfP1BSk77NHB2OEUGwVftShJyf1EgIDBC0z2fcdOfyv7gyroZcyoGFA6k0CA+WKWW MfhyB0Q82iRmx7Z4wLvlS9Tq11Lr92qoylXq6tdNVAaE/Pmr28RSJuQkwCJPRE0Gr2Gd v8IT/mk2tQ+qPfEgi+Uew3IfCxKx5Rq/NVpNxNctumgH8MlY5Q0mFIDtb3GbKW9F2DS9 rcMNblQMEIL26rjz5USzqFz8bEdwsjC3HfUYAdM8b30ZNSBLa1i7kPcS2rgFwxQo8MFE HhKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOToZk8DwvGJTbks3bfwX0r8XihYXc+cSt5q0f/CImysYPic+xbK3TVIaC4WeL4MQRbFDABW+4O6pmfV2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.246.37 with SMTP id xt5mr26957840oec.72.1456208823461; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:27:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.202.104.98 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:27:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:27:03 +0200 Message-ID: From: Arnon Warshavsky To: SwamZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Performance degradation with multiple ports X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 06:27:04 -0000 Hi Swamy A somewhat similar degradation (though not with l2fwd) was experienced by us as described here http://dev.dpdk.narkive.com/OL0KiHns/dpdk-dev-missing-prefetch-in-non-vecto= r-rx-function In our case it surfaced for not using the default configuration and working in non-vector mode, and it behaved the same for both ixgbe and i40e. /Arnon On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:24 AM, SwamZ wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to find the maximum IO core performance with DPDK-2.2 code > using l2fwd application. I got the following number in comparison with > DPDK-1.7 code. > > > One Port Two ports > > DPDK 2.2 14.86Mpps per port 11.8Mpps per port > > DPDK 1.7 11.8Mpps per port 11.8Mpps per port > > > > Traffic rate from Router tester: 64bytes packet with 100% line rate > (14.86Mpps per port) > > CPU Speed : 3.3GHz > > NIC : 82599ES 10-Gigabit > > IO Virtualization: SR-IOV > > Command used: ./l2fwd -c 3 -w 0000:02:00.1 -w 0000:02:00.0 -- -p 3 -T 1 > > > Note: > > - Both the ports are in same NUMA node. I got the same results with full > CPU core as well as hyper-theraded core. > > - PCIe speed is same for both the ports. Attached the lspci and other > relevant output. > > - In multiple port case, each core was receiving only 11.8Mpps. This mea= ns > that RX is the bottleneck. > > > Questions: > > 1) For two ports case, I am getting only 11.8Mpps per port compared to > single port case, for which I got line rate. What could be the reason for > this performance degradation? I was looking at the DPDK mail archive and > found the following article similar to this and couldn=E2=80=99t conclude= anything. > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2013-May/000115.html > > > 2) Did anybody try this kind of performance test for i40E NIC? > > > Thanks, > > Swamy >