Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API refactoring

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

Is there someone investigating the issue?
I think it should be simple to fix for someone mastering these Intel drivers.

2016-03-25 01:02, Xu, Qian Q:
> Marc
> #Test1 is just a simple test. Just launch testpmd with these nic port.
> ./testpmd –c 0x3 –n 4 -- -i
> 
> Thanks
> Qian
> 
> From: marc.sune@gmail.com [mailto:marc.sune@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marc
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:48 PM
> To: Xu, Qian Q
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin; Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API refactoring
> 
> 
> 
> On 24 March 2016 at 07:21, Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>> wrote:
> Marc
> I didn’t quite get your points, I observed that after applying this patchset, all intel nic can’t be started, maybe something wrong happened when you check the duplex/autoneg value for different NICs. If we want to merge the patchset in RC2, we need fix them. Maybe not an easy job in several days.
> 
> Is this test#1 one of the tests contained in the DPDK repository or is it an internal test?
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Qian
> 
> From: marc.sune@gmail.com<mailto:marc.sune@gmail.com> [mailto:marc.sune@gmail.com<mailto:marc.sune@gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Marc
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:54 AM
> To: Xu, Qian Q
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin; Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> 
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API refactoring
> 
> Qian,
> 
> On 23 March 2016 at 02:18, Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>> wrote:
> We have tested with intel nic and found port can't be started for all nics:ixgbe/i40e/igb/bonding, see attached mail for more details. Please check and fix it.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Qian
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:59 AM
> To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin
> Cc: marcdevel@gmail.com<mailto:marcdevel@gmail.com>; Richardson, Bruce; dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API refactoring
> 
> 2016-03-17 19:08, Thomas Monjalon:
> > There are still too few tests and reviews, especially for
> > autonegotiation with Intel devices (patch #6).
> > I would not be surprised to see some bugs in this rework.
> 
> Any feedback about autoneg in e1000/ixgbe/i40e?
> Has it been tested before its integration in RC2?
> 
> > The capabilities must be adapted per device. It can be improved in a
> > separate patch.
> >
> > It will be integrated in 16.04-rc2.
> > Please test and review shortly, thanks!
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>>
> To: "Cao, Waterman" <waterman.cao@intel.com<mailto:waterman.cao@intel.com>>, "Glynn, Michael J" <michael.j.glynn@intel.com<mailto:michael.j.glynn@intel.com>>
> Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com>>, "Zhu, Heqing" <heqing.zhu@intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu@intel.com>>, "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>, "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com<mailto:john.mcnamara@intel.com>>, "Xu, HuilongX" <huilongx.xu@intel.com<mailto:huilongx.xu@intel.com>>, "Fu, JingguoX" <jingguox.fu@intel.com<mailto:jingguox.fu@intel.com>>, "Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>>, "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com<mailto:helin.zhang@intel.com>>
> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:41:37 +0000
> Subject: RE: DPDK link speed with Intel devices
> Hi, all
> We have worked out the basic test cases for the patchset.
> 1. Test the link speed on major Intel NICs to see if the speed is right.
> 2. Test the auto-negoation on major Intel NICs to ensure it's working.
> Nic covered: ixgbe, igb, i40e, fm10k, bonding(SW), virtio(SW)
> 
> When we run the Test#1 for all major NICs. We found that all these NIC port(igb, ixgbe, i40e, fm10k) can't be started. Pls check, if the patch is applied, all INTEL port can't be start, terrible things!
> 
> Interactive-mode selected
> Configuring Port 0 (socket 0)
> PMD: ixgbe_dev_tx_queue_setup(): sw_ring=0x7f13e99e3440 hw_ring=0x7f13e99e5480 dma_addr=0x8299e5480
> PMD: ixgbe_set_tx_function(): Using simple tx code path
> PMD: ixgbe_set_tx_function(): Vector tx enabled.
> PMD: ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup(): sw_ring=0x7f13ffcb8080 sw_sc_ring=0x7f13ffcbaac0 hw_ring=0x7f13e99d3380 dma_addr=0x8299d3380
> PMD: ixgbe_dev_start(): Invalid link_speeds for port 0; autonegotiation disabled
> Fail to start port 0
> Configuring Port 1 (socket 0)
> PMD: i40e_set_tx_function_flag(): Vector tx can be enabled on this txq.
> PMD: i40e_dev_rx_queue_setup(): Rx Burst Bulk Alloc Preconditions are satisfied. Rx Burst Bulk Alloc function will be used on port=1, queue=0.
> PMD: i40e_dev_start(): Invalid link_speeds for port 1; autonegotiation disabled
> 
> 
> Just to double-check; is the test#1 adapted to the _new_ API that ethdev has to set link speeds? For the output it seems autoneg is disabled => fixed speed, hence the new bitmaps have to be used.
> 
> (I am not claiming patchset is bug free; there might be issues still)
> 
> Regards
> marc
> 
> Fail to start port 1
> Please stop the ports first
> Done
> 
> Thanks
> Qian
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cao, Waterman
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:06 AM
> To: Glynn, Michael J
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce; Zhu, Heqing; O'Driscoll, Tim; Mcnamara, John; Xu, Qian Q; Cao, Waterman
> Subject: RE: DPDK link speed with Intel devices
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
>         We just knew this patch set last week.
>         Since this patch set is required to test with a lot of NIC,  we need more document from Dev about this patch.
>         Currently, Qian is working on with Wenzhuo on it now.
> 
> Waterman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glynn, Michael J
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:31 AM
> To: Cao, Waterman <waterman.cao@intel.com<mailto:waterman.cao@intel.com>>
> Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com>>; Zhu, Heqing <heqing.zhu@intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu@intel.com>>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com<mailto:john.mcnamara@intel.com>>
> Subject: FW: DPDK link speed with Intel devices
> Importance: High
> 
> Hi Waterman, all
> 
> See below - are you aware? And if so where are we with testing/resolution?
> 
> Regards
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]
> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 2:19 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>; Glynn, Michael J <michael.j.glynn@intel.com<mailto:michael.j.glynn@intel.com>>; Zhu, Heqing <heqing.zhu@intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu@intel.com>>
> Cc: vincent.jardin@6wind.com<mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
> Subject: DPDK link speed with Intel devices
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We are still waiting for test feedbacks for this important patchset:
>         ethdev: 100G and link speed API refactoring It is possible that it breaks the autonegotiation in e1000/ixgbe/i40e.
> 
> Thanks for taking care.
> 
>