From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <masood.moshref.j@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-yw0-f175.google.com (mail-yw0-f175.google.com
 [209.85.161.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C11E2B8C
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Mon,  4 Jul 2016 19:40:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-yw0-f175.google.com with SMTP id i12so44158623ywa.1
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=nJePghlE1Czf6UAndX0fcD5wCW3hNlN/c0UfsoEdaJM=;
 b=SMulXX4tsMUPrNJ650glPi1O09VM8mdNZ1LIUEAizqRVTpuSHfcrZaAcnfks+nNuF8
 EHSZPJEKTTE5RtwV8jDeEfxsLcztZ0uhV1B4YLB67bJSvakMCvo3pdlNISgattAD4bfn
 esbsSqxwtuNkgHhAsqiU0lVvuYaqDFkLiEHBRhNxhWEx8/LRSlDjNoRTGPrlM5pBpSnC
 2IcMpSsY/Jj33foJPE/bfnHp/I+6f7U5z3CHwhxsWV3QEhyh5b0dLvLlvxHgNaXk3bFk
 kFv+2jph2/7g7jTifAkSzFmKxGng+4IIbqoCUEo/rm60bCOkb6sMxJIe+/JOJseDH98Y
 LnIw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=nJePghlE1Czf6UAndX0fcD5wCW3hNlN/c0UfsoEdaJM=;
 b=QZ9XNnobRtTF0/edQ6+tttT8Y0fn0kPq829aEE8mnHbc9OyxRhdCi1UG4cMDtm+9Yt
 cWPut/YDcyrHtqIwUQXw5HyqGnjk19z5t7e/jii3nz6K9T1I8QLTixO6DCwrmcrDltOW
 hk7sy5IwrDP90PZex0JwLXi+atSXDsvCYkKArcvtTnYGerW2wbRUsXfP1dFQozqEWmPr
 ylo4CkrRXynqimB4tq7qkMF6WeSwFSo26NVVG2TZdvE8bLyb+SB5fVuUi6cMs6SQRrY+
 kkN7aL+Ose14QHJLiWnyvImq7QDXpPu9RqJQf83f01yBjIMNCcRe0GLm9hT5lLFciO7L
 DNFQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIoM/JM5sfEWDAIa+a7cdY3WcjqvIsxC4q4/JxISfTJxhuCfCQrq851cFUsC86Hqq9NG2vIp5ok5zt9tA==
X-Received: by 10.129.134.132 with SMTP id w126mr8336177ywf.137.1467654027828; 
 Mon, 04 Jul 2016 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHtRHyDPhVtW1q9D7N=LgNCV2w26uaK0cv8tD+k1uVZQ=vvSkg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAN7yQ2o0EmPzLkmtjeaDDQQCmjSBwed3VG3VjgKBvg2DF4MSJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN7yQ2o0EmPzLkmtjeaDDQQCmjSBwed3VG3VjgKBvg2DF4MSJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Masoud Moshref Javadi <masood.moshref.j@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:40:18 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKCrth2NQy8XeJ6rrNWNK=+KOasZR53ShDJFHf+DaA=oR5soxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen <zain2294@gmail.com>,
 Sepehr Nazary <sepehr.nazary@googlemail.com>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] multi core performance problem
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2016 17:40:28 -0000

Check the CPU core frequencies as you increase the number of cores that run
in 100%.
Because of heating and dynamic frequency in Cores, as you increase the
number of cores that process packets, the frequency can go down.

Also make sure that for higher number of cores, you use large enough mem
pool.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 10:34 AM Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen <zain2294@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I am no expert with memory bandwidth and hardware acceleration. But what i
> can infer from this issue is that 1 of 2 things
> 1. Either QPI is being used and the maximum bandwidth is achieved
> 2. Or RAM has reached it's maximum bandwidth and this is the reason the
> higher orders core are getting more bandwidth then lower order
>
> But keith, and Thomas can tell you more on this subject
>