From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D190A0679 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045611B568; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (mail.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.3]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49A21B535 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.lysator.liu.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DAB840007 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 1B3E440005; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:21 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on bernadotte.lysator.liu.se X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Score: -0.9 Received: from [192.168.1.59] (host-90-232-144-184.mobileonline.telia.com [90.232.144.184]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8355840003; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:20 +0200 (CEST) To: Venky Venkatesh , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <3353B035-E890-4753-8863-5647DFE61E23@paloaltonetworks.com> <8510f66d-a63e-4ef9-44e1-071758fec6fd@ericsson.com> <3B32DEF7-8563-4BB5-BB01-0BFE29277B37@paloaltonetworks.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mattias_R=c3=b6nnblom?= Message-ID: <2fd8bee9-a375-95b7-eb96-eef8b59e531d@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 21:02:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3B32DEF7-8563-4BB5-BB01-0BFE29277B37@paloaltonetworks.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DSW eventdev is getting "stuck"? 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: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Message-ID: <20190403190220.Zw917qXEMAWfWtfyELclf4pQkvNTK6S74Uaqr3AneHY@z> On 2019-04-03 20:36, Venky Venkatesh wrote: > > > On 4/3/19, 11:34 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote: > > On 2019-04-03 20:17, Venky Venkatesh wrote: > > Hi, > > I am using the DSW code from 18.11 with the default settings for all the #defines. Here are some more details: > > I have an 8 port system with 1 queue. > > All ports can inject events. Port 0 and 7 inject events rarely. > > Ports 1-6 are linked to the queue and hence dequeue events. > > > > I see that in steady state the total number enqueues into the system is much greater than the total number of dequeues. > > eventdev deq#: 1948491 enq#: 1949007 > > > > If you have more enqueues than dequeues, it means there are events in > flight in the scheduler. In the above case, it's roughly 516 events, > which sounds perfectly healthy and normal. I say roughly, because > there's no way to take a consistent, global snapshot of all xstats counters. > > [VV]: This is in steady state i.e. there are no more events being injected into the system. So shouldn’t everything get drained out at some point? > Assuming appropriate application behavior, sure, of course. Events in flight are either in the output buffer on the producer port, or the input ring on the consumer. Inappropriate behavior would be if any port (producer, consumer or producer+consumer) is left unattended (i.e. no enqueue or dequeue operation is performed).