From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3DE137C for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:10:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2016 06:10:26 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1015935815" Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.204]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Aug 2016 06:10:26 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.36) by FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:10:25 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.149]) by fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.125.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:10:25 -0700 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Caianning CC: "users@dpdk.org" , Houzhipeng , Houyuzhu Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] Does any thing wrong with the DPDK sample l2fwd-jobstats Thread-Index: AdH4fUo7yIoYqy4KS5GLBeqlL9BDqgARhkkA Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:10:24 +0000 Message-ID: <84F5DAED-BB68-425E-B79C-A2B5FCFB41E7@intel.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.230.65] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <21C4567C394E8A49880F87858DDC70A3@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Does any thing wrong with the DPDK sample l2fwd-jobstats X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:10:27 -0000 Comments inline. Regards, Keith > On Aug 17, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Caianning wrote: >=20 > Hi, > I noticed that when the pktgen(version 3.0.09) port 1 rx rate drop= to half of normal when l2fwd-jobstat shows Port statistics. (while l2fwd d= ropped packet is 0). And port 0 kept same as normal. > DPDK version 16.07.0 >=20 > My cmd line as following: > Pktgen: > pktgen -c 0x1ff -n 3 -- -P -m "[1-2:3-4].0,[5-6:7-8].1" > with port 0 and port 1 started The Pktgen command line looks find to me and I assume the lcores being used= are full physical core? Is the=20 >=20 > lwfwd-jobstats: > l2fwd-jobstats -c 580000000 -- -p 3 BTW, it maybe easier to see which cores are being used here by using the -l= instead of -c. Eg. -l 0-8 and -l 31-32,34 this also assum= es the lcores are per physical core. If you run the tools/cpu_info.py script you will be able to see the lcore/c= ore relationship. >=20 > but the l2fwd does not. Maybe some other processes disturbed the = forwarding processing(alarm trig task re-schedule?), and Shall these cores = be isolated? >=20 > Thanks. >=20