From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAE2108D for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l43so96596401wre.1 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=/AxyWudPB/WFpJa/yOXRJItCUJiFSkYDwSzxI/Qayfg=; b=hSBmhs0KA/2jtuS0Kh+hykiSh4b7fytEwIdutr51Bm9HrLBRMZeP1/z6eTn75WKo3w Cs8oVOsNX0Gb1EcCic+lNaqHcnwcb4YfOF6AT+c18pCLIeJuZHCD3hTxbPOYX9ndzQlq zzwgrqKYF4E20wra9GbMx5f4HLsmvf7kX/wCdUaC8OKVuGfvSWZ4ikCGYKW0WiFVe26J 8rEdWZoLbVzRZUZ7S6tDj1YUX0DokQ9F/rJgUAUEVRdwQomQi/EqG/fHKCG5qWfnUr71 dkzzZnrdwaLcvNlov7PA8IGCqDFTT9l8ceHdHMlZjpE7nwWHW+tW9upinKHuB+0zPIBr sAfw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/AxyWudPB/WFpJa/yOXRJItCUJiFSkYDwSzxI/Qayfg=; b=iw4yoQj+U2mCQ8VMyMW7aSUkYGKYVZO3PeM2nAAATQ740HOHIe207K0JoEFOPxruNZ C18Cl4zD8TF2pNGhq05VOgSSOh7YbCevirrgNFKCHyiJXJe4g99H4lXYZBrc5AdyKOdb RbxpU6rtidk+2JfgAnURShNuOXhVH00P/vsFByXVndWzZK3Gkt4WJH4/jU403rvn8Vmy zuC4t0w1ijSJnATFnhhYbfcEanfU0ulXsAqVNpYFWe8cmTW/FAOEK9D+3nZIQZ+r/fB/ NgMu4+0qocbxgcHWZzOBbNDS+8Ram/X9pyvPICqGWqccArDVbirLhI3zmD6y6WL3puVh 4vkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3I7jJVc3F9e6FkC7TJSuaLR/cuM0aUy1/+bCUgtmpS2IBRN/V/YMDPJPTyMQqrIbxl X-Received: by 10.223.151.140 with SMTP id s12mr1814981wrb.58.1490949302331; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from autoinstall.dev.6wind.com (host.78.145.23.62.rev.coltfrance.com. [62.23.145.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e129sm2000821wma.13.2017.03.31.01.35.01 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:35:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:34:53 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro To: "Legacy, Allain" , Olga Shern Cc: "Adrien Mazarguil (adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com)" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Peters, Matt" Message-ID: <20170331083453.GX16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> References: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F8E2F@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <20170328153602.GC16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F92EF@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <20170329094523.GG16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F9CBF@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <20170330130320.GR16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968FCD16@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968FCD16@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] mlx5 flow create/destroy behaviour X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:35:02 -0000 On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 04:53:47PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:03 AM > <...> > > I found an issue on the id retrieval while receiving an high rate of the > > same flow [1]. You may face the same issue. Can you verify with the > > patch? > > > > Thanks, > > > > [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/22897/ > > I had some difficulty applying that patch onto v17.02 so I took all of > the patches to the mlx5 driver that are in dpdk-next-net just to be > sure I had all other outstanding fixes. > > The behavior did not change. I still see flows that are not marked > even after a flow rule has been created to match on that particular > flow. It seems like it works in batches... 10-20 flows will work, > and then the next 10-20 flows won't work, and then the next 10-20 > flows will work. But, in all cases I have logs that show that the > flow rules were created properly for all flows, and destroyed properly > at the end of each test. It seems pretty consistent that the first > test after a NIC reset always works on all flows, but then subsequent > tests see variable results. Every so often I get another test run > that has no issues but then the failure pattern resumes on the next > attemp. + Olga Shern, Allain, Thanks for all this tests, for this last point is seems to be a firmware or hardware issue, I don't have any way to help on that case. I suggest you to contact directly Mellanox to have some support regarding this. Thanks, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND