From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f169.google.com (mail-io0-f169.google.com [209.85.223.169]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D60237AF for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 11:50:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-io0-f169.google.com with SMTP id o22so17864764iod.3 for ; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:50:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X6RTsbr3Y+ZSF7l/j0/oZMe/YZ8PL0XqyHGrgtceRaQ=; b=Z320jOHA7pL5HkcYoCYMd/G7P29aqryxwST3z1g0EI6m1lyW6jCZwrqPqJqRCDvGBK fZlguvX6MoVOWZqazHaD6rcXZ0dU1mZRqpLlCNV7KbHHyNfABatzhmEegk8fnzoeKQF6 UWXru1l6KZ5Iw+ZP2iEtsofNL1XBdi8T86rltcSrTsAqWUQXFB/53VKfi6MnW4WDjAox DoitmWP/htGWH3KSBx0r4f4Z3JCa1sq7rwQOkh9tA7CyfhHSskE9yeIfhhBsV/U3pVU8 YQZJXOlB6adFdvYG/4lKam6e2hCUbkDNZUTdgJ+c67fww9cOPswT5/BHMFBIJUrNX7c6 Oqjg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X6RTsbr3Y+ZSF7l/j0/oZMe/YZ8PL0XqyHGrgtceRaQ=; b=h50SAyB2bVXMXvqKXd0NUe+u+s44/qLQXPSs+75BpoLiwhNekjkQaNeEbSSfAv+7Qa OqmlHd3xHFYwKMwGiqDb7xvZ+spQddTU1V6TVTR0EsiHTSx/4HlB8jjKIvy8SwboRAti hfuzx6NtIYk/u8x/FY7XaZGm/EIQ1LSD6MyzQgzMOx8kmuRm/nsOkjt0XFyeNLUGP4pl T2kl2IaEYhhJWrSPX0zoHLjJdQ9pthlZFj756YBXPamGxYanIoo8EdpFPZLFnNwomtNm PxnYagBM+l0HNO68pyQH3/yz10ZN0UtFAouP9ZrPmdhYhL4noc+tZardiFJeM2S0VAzZ MGuQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/712Jl57Wcivn2Cf6wz5jbfIiAXMdkFtiRaFFRgMm4UGMbYMco1 pE3aUjEQ5H5DE9hmxCq0urH+B1vOFRHO X-Received: by 10.107.141.203 with SMTP id p194mr2026095iod.71.1492595421927; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:50:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.47.88 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 02:49:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090348F9CF@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090348F7DF@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090348F9CF@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> From: Bill Bonaparte Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:49:41 +0800 Message-ID: To: "Lu, Wenzhuo" Cc: Garik E , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] No RX frames on Intel 82599 VF 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 09:50:22 -0000 I have the same problem on my 82599 nic, after I turnoff the jumbo_frame, it works. you can try rte_eth_dev_configure with the dev_conf.jumbo_frame =3D 0. On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > From: Garik E [mailto:kiragon@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 12:48 PM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] No RX frames on Intel 82599 VF > > Hi, > > On the S2600WT2 server, when DPDK is bound to VF, there is no incoming > traffic. > But when the same VF is bound to ixgbevf driver and configured as Linux > interface, > it works normally. I was able to run ping and ssh through that VF. > So my guess is that the RX issue is not due to malfunction hardware. > > The same binary works correctly on S2600WTTR server with 82599 VF > I also tested the application with Mellanox ConnectX-4 on both servers > There were no issues with CX-4 PF and VF > > For some reason DPDK VF RX functionality does not work on S2600WT2. > [Wenzhuo] No clue now. But I think you can compare what=E2=80=99s the dif= ference > between S2600WT2 and S2600WTTR. > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>> wrote: > Hi Garik, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On > Behalf Of Garik E > > Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 2:22 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] No RX frames on Intel 82599 VF > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have two Intel servers S2600WTTR and S2600WT2 both with 82599 10G > > Ethernet Controllers > > > > I run the same DPDK application on both servers. > > > > The application works with one interface bound to physical or virtual P= CI > > function depending on configuration > > > > The S2600WTTR server receives incoming traffic on physical and virtual > > functions > S2600WTTR is working right? > > > > > The S2600WT2 server receives traffic only on physical function > > > > When I bind S2600WT2 VF to ixgbevf driver and configure it as Linux ETH > > interface, it works normally. > Don't understand what you're doing here. And you say *works*? Is S2600WT2 > the one not working? > > > > > > > Network sniffer shows that Ethernet frames arrive to S2600WT2 port and > > frames are valid, > > > > however DPDK does not receive them. > > > > > > Where can I start to debug this issue ? > > > > > > OS: RHEL 6.6 x86-64 > > > > DPDK: 16-07-rc1 > >