On 6/14/16, 2:46 AM, "Take Ceara" <dumitru.ceara at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Keith, > >On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles at intel.com> wrote: >> >> On 6/13/16, 9:07 AM, "dev on behalf of Take Ceara" <dev-bounces at dpdk.org >> on behalf of dumitru.ceara at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>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? >> >> Normally the limitation is in the hardware, basically how the PCI bus is >> connected to the CPUs (or sockets). How the PCI buses are connected to the >> system depends on the Mother board design. I normally see the buses attached >> to socket 0, but you could have some of the buses attached to the other >> sockets or all on one socket via a PCI bridge device. >> >> No easy way around the problem if some of your PCI buses are split or all on >> a single socket. Need to look at your system docs or look at lspci it has an >> option to dump the PCI bus as an ASCII tree, at least on Ubuntu. > >This is the motherboard we use on our system: > >http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/Xeon/C600/X10DRX.cfm > >I need to swap some NICs around (as now we moved everything on socket >1) before I can share the lspci output. FYI: the option for lspci is ?lspci ?tv?, but maybe more options too. > >Thanks, >Dumitru >
