From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mo5.mail-out.ovh.net (8.mo5.mail-out.ovh.net [178.32.116.78]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D20DF68F0 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:16:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail187.ha.ovh.net (b9.ovh.net [213.186.33.59]) by mo5.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 66F99FF95D8 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:22:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Feb 2014 15:18:22 +0200 Received: from lneuilly-152-23-9-75.w193-252.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO pcdeff) (ff@ozog.com@193.252.40.75) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 18 Feb 2014 15:18:21 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois-Fr=E9d=E9ric_Ozog?= To: References: , <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B01A99D070@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:14:51 +0100 Message-ID: <005a01cf2cab$6840a310$38c1e930$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac8sp2Hbtl4PM0I4SvCLaP3nfQoneQAAGpNw Content-Language: fr X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 6745547818781956313 X-Ovh-Remote: 193.252.40.75 (lneuilly-152-23-9-75.w193-252.abo.wanadoo.fr) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-OVH-SPAMSTATE: OK X-OVH-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-OVH-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeejtddrjedvucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecu X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeejtddrleegucetufdoteggodetrfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecu Subject: [dpdk-dev] Receive queue full 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, 18 Feb 2014 13:16:58 -0000 Hi, I am bumping into a similar problem than the one explained here (https://www.mail-archive.com/e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07684.= htm l): At some point in time, a receive queue gets "FULL" i.e. = tail=3D=3Dhead (reading the NIC registers) and the thread associated to that queue = cannot retrieve any packet from it. The test program derived from L2FWD echoes packets received on one port = back to the same port, it reads up to 32 packets and send them back. The echo works nicely for a few seconds then queues gets full and stall. I have found that setting rx_conf.rx_free_thresh down from 32 to 28 (the multiple of 4 just before 32) avoids the problem and can handle close to 10Mpps per port.=20 Test context: - 4 socket Xeon E7 4800v2 with 256GB RAM - 32GB hugepages reserved, 104 lcores reserved - DPDK 1.5.0, testing with the latest from git presents a performance glitch I can't pinpoint at present. - two ports (either 82599ES or X540) loaded at 10Mpps - various tests with 2 to 15 receive queues per port - various tests with different combinations of RX_PTHRESH, RX_HTHRESH, RX_WTHRESH It really looks like a race condition (32 reads, 32 refresh cycle) but I can't figure it out if it exists. I'd be glad to get any comment or question on the issue. Cordially, Fran=E7ois-Fr=E9d=E9ric