From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F358D35 for ; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 03:12:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2015 18:12:14 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,500,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="786258338" Received: from pgsmsx101.gar.corp.intel.com ([10.221.44.78]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2015 18:12:13 -0700 Received: from shsmsx101.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.4.153) by PGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com (10.221.44.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:09:45 +0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.210]) by SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.171]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:09:44 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" To: Martin Weiser Thread-Topic: i40e: problem with rx packet drops not accounted in statistics Thread-Index: AQHQ6vbXoRzDPrpKHEGgek6nfv9/Wp406oiQ Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 01:09:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <55F01EC7.1070909@allegro-packets.com> In-Reply-To: <55F01EC7.1070909@allegro-packets.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] i40e: problem with rx packet drops not accounted in statistics 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: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 01:12:17 -0000 Hi Martin Yes, the statistics issue has been reported several times recently. We will check the issue and try to fix it or get a workaround soon. Thank y= ou very much! Regards, Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Weiser [mailto:martin.weiser@allegro-packets.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 7:58 PM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: i40e: problem with rx packet drops not accounted in statistics >=20 > Hi Helin, >=20 > in one of our test setups involving i40e adapters we are experiencing pac= ket > drops which are not reflected in the interfaces statistics. > The call to rte_eth_stats_get suggests that all packets were properly rec= eived > but the total number of packets received through rte_eth_rx_burst is less= than > the ipackets counter. > When for example running the l2fwd application (l2fwd -c 0xfe -n 4 -- -p > 0x3) and having driver debug messages enabled the following output is > generated for the interface in question: >=20 > ... > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): ***************** VSI[6] stats start > ******************* > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): rx_bytes: 242624340000 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): rx_unicast: 167790000 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): rx_multicast: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): rx_broadcast: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): rx_discards: 1192557 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): rx_unknown_protocol: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): tx_bytes: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): tx_unicast: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): tx_multicast: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): tx_broadcast: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): tx_discards: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): tx_errors: 0 > PMD: i40e_update_vsi_stats(): ***************** VSI[6] stats end > ******************* > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): ***************** PF stats start > ******************* > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_bytes: 242624340000 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_unicast: 167790000 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_multicast: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_broadcast: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_discards: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_unknown_protocol: 167790000 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_bytes: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_unicast: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_multicast: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_broadcast: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_discards: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_errors: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_dropped_link_down: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): crc_errors: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): illegal_bytes: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): error_bytes: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): mac_local_faults: 1 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): mac_remote_faults: 1 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_length_errors: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): link_xon_rx: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): link_xoff_rx: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[0]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[0]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[1]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[1]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[2]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[2]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[3]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[3]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[4]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[4]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[5]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[5]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[6]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[6]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_rx[7]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_rx[7]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): link_xon_tx: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): link_xoff_tx: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[0]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[0]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[0]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[1]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[1]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[1]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[2]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[2]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[2]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[3]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[3]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[3]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[4]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[4]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[4]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[5]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[5]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[5]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[6]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[6]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[6]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_tx[7]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xoff_tx[7]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): priority_xon_2_xoff[7]: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_64: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_127: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_255: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_511: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_1023: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_1522: 167790000 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_size_big: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_undersize: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_fragments: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_oversize: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): rx_jabber: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_64: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_127: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_255: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_511: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_1023: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_1522: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): tx_size_big: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): mac_short_packet_dropped: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): checksum_error: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): fdir_match: 0 > PMD: i40e_dev_stats_get(): ***************** PF stats end > ******************** > ... >=20 > The count for rx_unicast is exactly the number of packets we would have > expected and the count for rx_discards in the VSI stats is exactly the nu= mber of > packets we are missing. > The question is why this number shows up only in the VSI stats and not in= the PF > stats and of course why the packets which were obviously discarded are st= ill > counted in the rx_unicast stats. > This test was performed using DPDK 2.1 and the firmware of the XL710 is t= he > latest one (FW 4.40 API 1.4 NVM 04.05.03). > Do you have an idea what might be going on? >=20 > Best regards, > Martin >=20 >=20