From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <users-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C7EAA057C for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:58:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2E61BFC3; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:58:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com (mail-pl1-f193.google.com [209.85.214.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4BC1BF73 for <users@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 18:58:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id e1so2426364plt.9 for <users@dpdk.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:58:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q1NTX8+7ouXf8Y6CApFm2oeDXuOHylrRB51aEf1zjPs=; b=oeA2LjxgHr6ElUOlb2200xFQLw24zT5PJgulYEoZXl7LBcQOkNJifC0m4hy5/vaw5s UiDWaE9zqEzH0pGpCLiYtVx3+TlCkm7tcFSspywKS78rtoMf5uI9iuMq1F0/0D7ASkc9 7hZ8i0fCLMe21dE56H4+2zyRHIEL+GkLzBe1eVXxYN82GO1f4eK9aLtJ/xQZN4R6YO4m qb5mXuzfBHPE5Okbwr77J9Qm256/3fbpt1rGvK6/GjYoapHOYAWYu5z6jj7CJs8yI0Df wDa86TTTY6MQBuLsCgHCm2ZCeFqZTe6VfFz2GhxVW9CfNrF17ELOAu/n8YMzkjOujnU7 c8Cw== 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:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q1NTX8+7ouXf8Y6CApFm2oeDXuOHylrRB51aEf1zjPs=; b=Rf6InR8c7OFf34GkuP7TLlqE1oznRFzKkjPNlp19fTioZ96oThnWF91YE8gYo0eVZu XZ3WlJmUYPP422aNPSneRVxYZ+Y7rf9K7LRFBNQphZYgq1PUX3sPT3+n2y3Iaqhfjav+ Lq/+vRVCuKbX681nvzY6oxlYUFdLq4PTasp9iodjbNnriv0I+U5CilI+YJsMyNjQe7Ht Pf4sAf6OJsecpnVys51xBEXa9AEBc6cEgIlfSyu+nLs4PUwPzWV+SzmoUN8xIWGFuijj 6HmhK45V0AA/cr5ED2BNerY5mRGkcACvB/Yak48vtbCI9PH90vQG7TtG6pK3eXd6JVry TkSw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1ypETEVf6UYYLl/OMSLWrwPhr19T5d06U0S2mgct1bu49c/7Sc x/mohNOBzU0AGOF6Kq5DltwCUA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vv2XID9ze5u4qfavhhVG9C0A85SmcRFK/fBA5DogMQsOMxn++7476g78u/rZbmqEV9wNscapA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ec01:: with SMTP id l1mr9247431pld.151.1585245481461; Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w127sm2141066pfw.218.2020.03.26.10.58.00 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:58:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:57:53 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> To: "Benoit Ganne (bganne)" <bganne@cisco.com> Cc: "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org> Message-ID: <20200326105753.5d1a7e05@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <CH2PR11MB4327C92B0AF7B4B6E1DEAA69C1CF0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> References: <CH2PR11MB4327898A6961D9BC8A4DA2A3C1CE0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <20200325154815.13fc7a4e@hermes.lan> <CH2PR11MB4327C92B0AF7B4B6E1DEAA69C1CF0@CH2PR11MB4327.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] CX4-Lx VF link status in Azure X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/users>, <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/> List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/users>, <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" <users-bounces@dpdk.org> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:26:56 +0000 "Benoit Ganne (bganne)" <bganne@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > > Is this with netvsc PMD or failsafe PMD? > > I am using failsafe PMD using the string "--vdev net_vdev_netvsc0,iface=eth1" etc. as mentioned here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/setup-dpdk > I checked with gdb what are the underlying devices and there is 1 mlx5 and 1 tap instance as expected. > To get the link state, the call stack is rte_eth_link_get_nowait() -> fs_link_update() -> mlx5_link_update() -> mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs() which looks good to me. > The link state update fails in mlx5_link_update_unlocked_gs() because the link speed retrieved from the Linux kernel driver is '0' (unknown). Note that ethtool and '/sys/class/net/<iface>/speed' also fails to report the link speed (but not the link status). > At the end of the day, maybe the Linux kernel driver should report a link speed, however I think it should not prevent DPDK to update the link state (up/down). > Just removing the offending test makes everything working again but I do not think it is the correct solution: I do not know why this test was added for. > > > You maybe missing this patch, which is only in current development branch. > > Since it is tagged for stable, it should end up in later LTS versions as > > well 18.11.X and 19.11.X. > > I tried the patch but it did not solve the issue. I think it is expected as I am using failsafe with tap and not netvsc, correct? > > Best > ben Is the Mellanox device being brought up by the base kernel setup? I find that for Mellanox the device has to be started from kernel (like ip) and DPDK doesn't do itself.