From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com (mail-la0-f42.google.com [209.85.215.42]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B080156 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 18:34:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id ec20so7186396lab.15 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:36:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=AV4q/ZeO/eKr5BYyPmYKDf8GvizIqirEh8uwnn8v+Vo=; b=xuX7M2QX1IeW7lMQvbhphXXwPEWakVZ1YIJgI6hlpnkhtfTMD961IZKNNucYANonO5 JFrW3qW3J3JjMM68m5iHNdkd4P5B+sopBKaanzUt7WqHL5m8ISEutZMTjTRjl8a+GqhN FfqbzMf0mOnXnT5Lf0FLS//rprcgFfPyC6KrNyOqOJsNlmmVicJ1RwkfGHh5P06NbU7x 53EwuENgq8Ux92gMMUXkc6f2QSOE3D53/hvWlnjhh/1Mh+PkTHtGY6QQPzAptgxpMVdL rBf8RgfpnSF04gTlTBG5NkmIxqh2yC3KEzyedlh3mFv91Qmhtgmi4wxZntbTI8+me0br mZVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.209.70 with SMTP id mk6mr23797555lac.13.1396370168783; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 09:36:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.174.73 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 09:36:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 20:36:08 +0400 Message-ID: From: Vladimir Medvedkin To: Fred Pedrisa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] L2FWD uses 'too much' CPU 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, 01 Apr 2014 16:34:34 -0000 Hi, One of the objectives of DPDK is avoiding of interrupts, so application (not only L2FWD) polls NIC infineteley. You can look at programmers guide section 24 "Power Management" and "L3 Forwarding with Power Management Sample Application" in Sample Applications User Guide. Regards, Vladimir. 2014-04-01 9:24 GMT+04:00 Fred Pedrisa : > Hi, > > > > Why by default L2FWD saturate both cores ? I mean, it seems it keeps > wasting > cycles due to the infinite loop placed there to check the queues. > > > > Which would be the way to improve this and make it to become more efficient > ? > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Fred > >