From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5016EA0353 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:03:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 317A32BD5; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:03:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140128.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.128]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C692BA8 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:23:38 +0100 (CET) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=FdQK1+6SNWBCm515it/4t5iM1VwLcanDpcar1ipLIh5G0icSqyHuyx4QVg6KUzmBwzCyFLzr1nb2QLpSiXyZbCngm0WWCuvEYgXGTGmaB8EudxkuiihXzicSfX1wT9uLCkfDuun52gcFI8KOYpqe5lzAl1sBv3E6uhDZmLWn8Rg26Y3T0xuWkO9pEQqGX0Q7DhD5yhblBAStk1ZNgVulGL7RGXsMVOuILVadDtC+vJVNLwQY+pHk3ZQAkxypf9A7RDA5HXV2NyNqT7Ch7bjeAJoFFao3uh6ATkxBPDDZKd0CV4G/YOyjLFLSyAc9qNJ4XKqfndnS1LO4pltdcU6vKw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kMMtFvcZgH6BZnDPKBYobQtb5IcYdCfhT/J7Df3qWrk=; b=kCM4ns/ylHNHKWmKxazX/0H9qKq0TLDy+O/kxGtB29JuLyxrJD8MI6yt/O/2bJyhc/E4OODxJc84L2Ug/IyZWQOVT2RrcOZch8eMiyV9ifARime6ypFKe6lRZqbM+cT5swHm3c1+bvfeeS7xBPX0ty+Tcrt9mph76zkeepaU/OVm500yTRmu5JCBl26OBuRmjfcf8/XcEjunIffK3hXuGsVaUomAnfd3U4CLq8/JRrGuqDxiJ/XBCP1x8r0BHQGyQo9ZzfZMURp4uaAZ89xvzrdFEI3QkH7HcHwEVb3gfuUwKeQzXP3XbV4oroY1gQs+tVkki2JVYng4j0nkhv/02g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=emutex.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=emutex.com; dkim=pass header.d=emutex.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emutex.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-emutex-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kMMtFvcZgH6BZnDPKBYobQtb5IcYdCfhT/J7Df3qWrk=; b=i1AOkzZfGHnSAdiQLuPui14QEpnOiDQnJp0um+oFfbPMP5qoROzSIce8giiAHqOtfRpxYMHYYyBOJwwb4vrzyRaE0KKs3dxCbIq1CUxbeAAzDwEIr1lTzM1zj0TNUlbA1UTkqUEuRQtXxzLtXFrhLZdQUHlv/ThXYFEyAeV7lw0= Received: from AM0P190MB0625.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.186.130.14) by AM0P190MB0706.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (10.141.146.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2451.23; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:23:35 +0000 Received: from AM0P190MB0625.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::a85b:911a:70fb:ca1d]) by AM0P190MB0625.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::a85b:911a:70fb:ca1d%4]) with mapi id 15.20.2451.027; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:23:35 +0000 From: Pierre Laurent To: Sarvesh Verma , "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] Sequential UDP packets Thread-Index: AQHVmffk9ZkYDEB4DkKj8RmwN8ViDKeLYKR2 Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 00:23:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-IE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=pierre.laurent@emutex.com; x-originating-ip: [192.198.151.44] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c3903cd7-7381-4204-412d-08d769620da8 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM0P190MB0706: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508; x-forefront-prvs: 02229A4115 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(346002)(39830400003)(376002)(396003)(136003)(189003)(199004)(2906002)(54896002)(7696005)(486006)(5660300002)(76176011)(2501003)(14444005)(66476007)(81166006)(66066001)(53546011)(6506007)(81156014)(6436002)(966005)(446003)(9686003)(236005)(25786009)(66946007)(14454004)(44832011)(86362001)(6246003)(66446008)(26005)(66556008)(64756008)(8936002)(476003)(102836004)(11346002)(105004)(3846002)(256004)(186003)(110136005)(508600001)(99286004)(6116002)(6306002)(55016002)(74316002)(76116006)(229853002)(19627405001)(33656002)(7736002)(316002)(52536014)(71200400001)(8676002)(71190400001)(606006); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM0P190MB0706; H:AM0P190MB0625.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: emutex.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 99da3veOxHZt1N1h4/lOWTd9bdqpprN3vnCmz3QKgDP7e1sqmfAnYl8fOjTCeLMGYBjaBXwPsoPvwsR3bBPQ9qE1Jd7k+ZlvTJYlO/c26mq6dvTZvTo3hULiA+vp5AhPcOFKnviMXqmPDc15xggbxHdjKJ8kYJJ17huUcqlx5wUSu7oPMghvwWjKse4KutqZ91HgnhwKndOtKIkElTVW7Ryd7LLb1Pe7mut+NtbsbFWZh+CEobbRcZH4DKFzUjR9ImHev92Vqr4JgVTLDigQzIGU+m1USwcKTywyhYAKerg1N3I8OEf/UH7PZt595CuVeTonJkH6LCEi495H2bHtBci0cWSXaEtKXRWg0kNFOqP/utfCR9Ti/NmE1nWKxi7k5H1UwW/t3UTe7kYtLt15uAa3lvVyqxmbOe4zQtLuxZPvmUY1iybd0KEs0oes4D6J x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: emutex.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c3903cd7-7381-4204-412d-08d769620da8 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Nov 2019 00:23:35.0955 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84cc844b-5c53-4da1-99da-34ef4089ea8e X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: mM0bX5R74TZVnOUgRjeQY/Xyj2weuP0Ot7p22qf38u5mMuBQCpVTNbmZs8lZrt9top/nVNv6LjihYjFQq19nFQxkQbvsOlJM+Ij87cFM1Zw= X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0P190MB0706 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:03:25 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Sequential UDP packets X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" HI Without much information , it is very hard to imagine what you are doing an= d what you are getting. >From the packet numbers you provide, it looks like you are seeing all packe= ts, and it is not a packet loss problem. DPDK itself does not reorder the packets. But your DPDK setup might be built from multiple path and transmit packets = from multiple threads and /or multiple queues , or both, or over multiple i= nterfaces. If you are sure to use one single TX thread, one single TX queue, one singl= e TX interface to transmit your packets with DPDK, then this cannot be a DP= DK problem. The problem can be on the receive side where you are using wireshark with s= ome standard OS and standard driver. It is very frequent in standard OS and= standard drivers to implement multiple RX queues (e.g. Windows, Ubuntu ...= ). With such a config, packets with the same tuple5 (source IP, dest IP, s= ource Port, dest Port, protocol https://www.techopedia.com/definition/2819= 0/5-tuple ) are not reordered and assigned to the same RX queue. If you number your packets by changing one of the elements of the tuple 5, = e.g. the destination udp port, then RX packets will be sent to different R= X queues, this standard feature is known as receive-side-scaling (RSS) = https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/network/introduct= ion-to-receive-side-scaling . Then Wireshark would get the packets in any = order, depending on polling strategies and priorities, rates and packet dis= tributions in the different queues. There are options in most OS to set the= number of queues, or disable RSS. Alternatively, make sure your packets have all the same "tuple5", and if yo= u want to put some sequential number, I suggest you do it in the UDP payloa= d. This response is a guess, because you provided NO information about your en= vironment, your setup, any packet size, any packet rate, any packet dump no= r investigations you already did. Regards, Pierre ________________________________ From: users on behalf of Sarvesh Verma Sent: Wednesday 13 November 2019 07:56 To: users@dpdk.org Subject: [dpdk-users] Sequential UDP packets Hey DPDK users, Since last two months I'm struggling to generate my own sequential UDP packets through DPDK. At receiving side my packets counts are matching but are not in sequence in Wireshark. Expected- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10......... Getting-1,4,6,8,9,2,3,5,7,10........=85 Hope anyone will reply soon. Thank you Sarvesh Verma