DPDK usage discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 배성종 <sjbae1999@gmail.com>
To: users@dpdk.org
Cc: "M: Dariusz Sosnowski" <dsosnowski@nvidia.com>,
	 "M: Viacheslav Ovsiienko" <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
	"M: Bing Zhao" <bingz@nvidia.com>,
	 "M: Ori Kam" <orika@nvidia.com>,
	"M: Suanming Mou" <suanmingm@nvidia.com>,
	 "M: Matan Azrad" <matan@nvidia.com>
Subject: [DPDK 24.11.3-rc1] rte_flow_async_create() stucks in while loop (infinite loop)
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2025 19:49:55 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMFKeQ0Q_RNC3mmg-X+wpb3qaOsrrnW=wPiE=c1HsOMy_bv4gg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1835 bytes --]

Hello commit authors (and maintainers),

I'm currently working with rte_flow_async_create() using the postpone flag,
along with rte_flow_push/pull() for batching, in a scenario involving
thousands of flows on a BlueField-2 system.

My goal is to implement hardware steering such that ingress traffic
bypasses the ARM core of the BF2, and egress traffic does the same.

According to the DPDK documentation, rte_flow_push/pull() seems to be
intended for use as a batch operation, wrapping a large for loop that
issues multiple flow operations, and then committing them to hardware in
one go.

However, I’ve observed that when multiple cores simultaneously insert flow
rules, using rte_flow_push/pull() in such a batched way can result in the
rule insertion operations not being properly transmitted to the hardware.
Specifically, the internal function mlx5dr_send_all_dep_wqe() ends up
getting stuck in its while loop.

Interestingly, if I call rte_flow_push/pull() after *each* individual
rte_flow_async_create() operation, even though that usage seems contrary to
the intended batching model, the infinite loop issue is significantly
mitigated. The frequency of getting stuck in mlx5dr_send_all_dep_wqe()
drops drastically—though it still occurs occasionally.

In summary, calling rte_flow_push/pull() after each rte_flow_async_create()
seems to avoid the infinite loop, but I’m unsure if this is an expected
usage pattern. I would like to ask:

   -

   Is this behavior intentional?
   -

   Am I misunderstanding the design or usage expectations for
   rte_flow_push/pull() in multi-core scenarios?

Thank you for your time and support.
Sincerely,
*Seongjong Bae *M.S. Student T-Networking Lab.

*Email* sjbae1999@gmail.com
*Mobile* (+82)01089640524
*Web.* https://tnet.snu.ac.kr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4863 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2025-08-11 13:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-28 10:49 배성종 [this message]
2025-08-11 16:08 ` Ivan Malov
2025-08-12  8:30   ` Bing Zhao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAMFKeQ0Q_RNC3mmg-X+wpb3qaOsrrnW=wPiE=c1HsOMy_bv4gg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=sjbae1999@gmail.com \
    --cc=bingz@nvidia.com \
    --cc=dsosnowski@nvidia.com \
    --cc=matan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=orika@nvidia.com \
    --cc=suanmingm@nvidia.com \
    --cc=users@dpdk.org \
    --cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).