Hi Wael, I currently have other issues with pkt_sock, but I have multiple instances working with the standard socket version of hashpipe (an older version) so maybe I can help. It's possible that I may run into the same issue with pkt_sock later on though.
I don't think I've had this particular issue, and if I have it's been a while since. And I might need a few more details to possibly be helpful, but if I understand your question, ideally, the 2 net threads should not be competing for resources. Is it possible that you are running the threads on the same cores? So for example, when I run multiple instances, each thread of each instance runs on it's own core. None of them run on the same core. And you're probably aware of this, but in the hashpipe command, you would set the core with the '-c' option followed by the number. So 'hashpipe -p ... -c 0 net thread -c 1 processing thread ...'. And those numbers should ideally be different for all of your threads. At least that's how I'm doing things. Hopefully that helps. If not, I might need a little more detail. Mark Ruzindana On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 8:06 PM Wael Farah <wael.a.fa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Hope everyone's doing well. > > I have an application I am trying to develop using hashpipe, and one of > the solutions might be using multiple instances of hashpipe on a single 40 > GbE interface. > > When I tried running 2 instances of hashpipe I faced a problem. The data > rate reported by the instances does not match that expected from the TXs. > No issues were seen if I reconfigure the TXs to send data to a single port, > rather than 2, and initialising a single hashpipe thread. Can the 2 > netthreads compete for resources on the NIC even if they are bound to > different ports? I've also noticed that the CPU usage for the 2 > netthreads is always 100%. > I am using "hashpipe_pktsock_recv_udp_frame" for the acquisition. > > Has anyone seen this/similar issue before? > > Thanks! > Wael > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups " > casper@lists.berkeley.edu" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to casper+unsubscr...@lists.berkeley.edu. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/lists.berkeley.edu/d/msgid/casper/CALO2pVe814yov06vb%3DeqSgXJdkN%2BDc3gEcF63Xwb7Kk_YGMy2Q%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/a/lists.berkeley.edu/d/msgid/casper/CALO2pVe814yov06vb%3DeqSgXJdkN%2BDc3gEcF63Xwb7Kk_YGMy2Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "casper@lists.berkeley.edu" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to casper+unsubscr...@lists.berkeley.edu. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/lists.berkeley.edu/d/msgid/casper/CA%2B41hpxr4kuN8CJL2gVXv2FFiXSgPqUPXqmRYSsUM%3DNytUkNkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
