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 95574A0540 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:29:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 240061C24A; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:29:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 264911C246 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 07:29:55 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: /NjQRMZIRBs9U6JEBtJ1CvkM3VL7mrJIkbsh6uihEtyhvt95L+9x4Fs3P4arIuqNzrV5DaB+Hs 3PDGwd9fgMvQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9681"; a="146284381" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,350,1589266800"; d="scan'208,217";a="146284381" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jul 2020 22:29:55 -0700 IronPort-SDR: FIWOyPzqlyrcoS2rJmeIjPIPiXWaICnxp8tNZY2Iiv4skQjoxIpmsrcaH5hR9mXCZIU6dX+3eK lbf/kRa1uyKQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.75,350,1589266800"; d="scan'208,217";a="285640322" Received: from orsmsx102.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.22.225.129]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2020 22:29:54 -0700 Received: from orsmsx156.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.22) by ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.225.129) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:29:54 -0700 Received: from ORSEDG001.ED.cps.intel.com (10.7.248.4) by ORSMSX156.amr.corp.intel.com (10.22.240.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:29:54 -0700 Received: from NAM10-MW2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (104.47.55.106) by edgegateway.intel.com (134.134.137.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 22:29:54 -0700 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=JuEInNHY+8/WKB3uPb2jm59nSzs5xtbbqPesiV20V2yHBHXn5rssqdUjE3EOGEnb5X1CotNE+gPW2wtUm1XLWdRqaHESoNXkYKSmyQziOOUllw1Nc8Pz2S2qDpQA5LMR5x525Fmv2hOPY77vgHrG+qNtfb7hzoXBt2DLPgcJQIvLOVcRKs+bMk5h3z3YHAI+EdPc15v2S7Vr3W5S808EO9nqhgTn/Gxmqx1b2qb05vjUo3Tx9GxPN2AUVVpeKVBnXhybElrJTHodTEuRLtcEVZGVY2qCzHLXRS7Gtv1LIMtCkgEtHfTZyZem+QL7sKk5Wl8/a3DDQGRh5C6GSGteiw== 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=CN7pU8wmlHLoEVwQGDxfQwpSYdpkfgSmX+nQ/fFjsek=; b=KEpeO5dU+FQSVCroz3q4WAsLlz6SmNeLdEAy+LzLwvw6m8yBfHll58HbbT5bgmdxOdS3c7vfSeFYVsIXncwz696K1dGpZSt5ujHQSG5AXmmtOd2y0eb+ZKbrM/DN6BD2/fsoUkIVCHX/Mn2nPt/rya4qKAQ5iDaoMNw6rnZG927gKzgy2aS1Z8cKBa6sfrzof99vphdDllSA/3koioOYXRE7MxX+LsxywbGIGzOCBv0QSXfJ/gS7ZGp6Z7n8guGhXpQkjgaHT8h39Nir5RWX/0G6c7eKWPxrDbi55fVN5DEUaw+YQMVnN/LbR2k+UNKO0j4pevVioPqbOt/QfJg+0g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=intel.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-intel-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=CN7pU8wmlHLoEVwQGDxfQwpSYdpkfgSmX+nQ/fFjsek=; b=Km6buBte9qCcY7v7OUXijPlp8bRm/toaBj46WMOenrXT18rHhADaivwtIu5zPfB5sm74pwGG2oDCiiVl0vkeVfHYtvVjLPQ4tGBSUeG7FvpY/6M96EFce3i4ibPGX2ZPhrFMAwsT328bkmWb+dOkupJM+I066vYJqldLYOVHvPQ= Received: from CY4PR11MB1750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:903:126::8) by CY4PR11MB1862.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:903:124::18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3174.22; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:29:53 +0000 Received: from CY4PR11MB1750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4c0d:eaf:c428:b45f]) by CY4PR11MB1750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4c0d:eaf:c428:b45f%4]) with mapi id 15.20.3174.025; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:29:53 +0000 From: "Li, Xiaoyun" To: "Johnson, Brian" , "Wu, Jianyue (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "users@dpdk.org" CC: "Harouat, Karim (Nokia - FR/Lannion)" , "Meunier, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" , "Cheng, Fei 2. (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Lu, Malak (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Li, Jiu (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Pan, Jianyong (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Hong, Christian (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Fei, Xiang (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Ning, Gang (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Ren, Longlong (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" , "Ye, Hua (NSB - CN/Hangzhou)" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-18.05] Issue while configuring VLAN ID and priority in VF Thread-Index: AdZZgUWuuNOZui7YTcmQ2DkuVfDM9wAB67ndAAVu2kA= Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 05:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1174405832d547f4b348f61a1d1ffed6@nokia-sbell.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: intel.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;intel.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=intel.com; x-originating-ip: [192.102.204.45] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 0aba5535-1bc2-4433-be1a-08d827b6efb2 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR11MB1862: x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882; x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: AwEFbtdnplvoEzsii8EjAtSmNa5TWRilCXXLXl14wLvSwrKVOvG7vdU9FvY2pDrfAICEcWJq/jcoLTl0RnJkuLN9ne6D34qYLSwfYfpYAQ+qnCmuuAO1tldmW8+sJNo/vPVKzcYpZrgFbbUQlKRLy1rovyze8977BzLQknoUPWwEznvg6wilInAxKpbsd1qqPhZJl+RyfsllE1mhfUIzZ2t+bdMtzL5SlY0cWIW7wNhMHXibujqEjPVVdfZ1PXzbDwSXOzruQOjZcdYu++1UZVC1hE5GeMxGwfNhhIeD2qM6d+lD5OMmlabXle+XOTRiNJlWOD4DifJB4L9Vm9jiwA== x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CY4PR11MB1750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(4636009)(396003)(136003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(66476007)(33656002)(5660300002)(76116006)(66446008)(52536014)(64756008)(66556008)(110136005)(54906003)(316002)(7416002)(66946007)(6506007)(53546011)(8676002)(2906002)(55016002)(9686003)(86362001)(478600001)(7696005)(71200400001)(26005)(4326008)(186003)(8936002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CY4PR11MB1750.namprd11.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 0aba5535-1bc2-4433-be1a-08d827b6efb2 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Jul 2020 05:29:53.0445 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Dn5pZu4rTcBSeNUIhioSiueMd85KWZBlQZFXPFvNXbQ3WDeuGFLOgRJXYMHawXGHMV8Mq/w9PeJ4ePhojPbXCA== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR11MB1862 X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-18.05] Issue while configuring VLAN ID and priority in VF 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 Jianyue The priority is related to DCB. I don't think DPDK enables dcb by default. But I'm not familiar with ixgbe and dcb mode. And I'm not sure who is famil= iar with dcb. Sorry about that. >From X550 datasheet, it seems that your requirement can be achieved. But th= e related codes in DPDK are quite a mess and complicated. I think you probably need to read the DCB mode in datasheet first. BRs Xiaoyun From: Johnson, Brian Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 10:53 To: Wu, Jianyue (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) ; Li, Xiaoy= un ; users@dpdk.org Cc: Harouat, Karim (Nokia - FR/Lannion) ; Meunier,= Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) ; Cheng, Fei 2.= (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) ; Lu, Malak (NSB - CN/Han= gzhou) ; Li, Jiu (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) ; Pan, Jianyong (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) ; Hong, Christian (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) ; = Fei, Xiang (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) ; Ning, Gang (NSB= - CN/Hangzhou) ; Ren, Longlong (NSB - CN/Hangzh= ou) ; Ye, Hua (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-18.05] Issue while configuring VLAN ID and = priority in VF What network adapter are you using? In some cases if there is a port vlan set, since the VF driver does not kno= w to add an additional 4B to the max Rx packet length, the packets get drop= ped by the hardware filters if the packet is at full MTU size. Try setting the MTU in DPDK and this should add the 4B or 8B needed. ________________________________ From: users > on beha= lf of Wu, Jianyue (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 7:43:38 PM To: Li, Xiaoyun >; users@= dpdk.org > Cc: Harouat, Karim (Nokia - FR/Lannion) >; Meunier, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay) >; Cheng, Fei 2. (NSB - CN= /Hangzhou) = >; Lu, Malak (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) >; Li, Jiu (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) >; Pan, Jianyong (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) >; Hong, Christian (N= SB - CN/Hangzhou) >; Fei, Xiang (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) >; Ning, Gang (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) >; Ren, Longlong (NSB - = CN/Hangzhou) >; Ye, Hua (NSB - CN/Hangzhou) > Subject: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-18.05] Issue while configuring VLAN ID and prio= rity in VF Hi, xiaoyun, Could you help give a hand about this issue? Thanks indeed:) Background: Simplified traffic flow is like this: Sender XEON X552 eth1 vf 0 -> Receive= r XEON X552 eth1 vf 0. Our requirement is to configure DPDK to support one VLAN ID, and with multi= ple priorities 0~7. Current configuration is: PVID: rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_pvid(port_id, 201, 1); VLAN offload: vlan_offload =3D rte_eth_dev_get_vlan_offload(port_id); vlan_offload &=3D ~ETH_VLAN_STRIP_OFFLOAD; vlan_offload &=3D ~ETH_VLAN_FILTER_OFFLOAD; vlan_offload &=3D ~ETH_VLAN_EXTEND_OFFLOAD; if (0 !=3D rte_eth_dev_set_vlan_offload(port_id, vlan_offload)) Spoof off, trust on: vf 0 MAC 02:40:43:80:01:39, spoof checking off, link-state auto, = trust on, query_rss off Test scenarios: =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D First scenario: set vlan in vf 0 -- priority always 0 =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D ip link show eth1 3: eth1: mtu 9194 qdisc mq state UP mode = DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 02:40:43:80:01:38 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff vf 0 MAC 02:40:43:80:01:39, vlan 201, spoof checking off, link-state auto, = trust on, query_rss off If we configure vlan in vf 0, then we can only send out packets with priori= ty 0. Even we already enabled mbuf->ol_flags |=3D PKT_TX_VLAN_PKT; and set correc= t mbuf->vlan_tci. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D Second scenario: not set vlan in vf 0 -- can't recv =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D 3: eth1: mtu 9194 qdisc mq state UP mode = DEFAULT group default qlen 1000 link/ether 02:40:43:80:01:38 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff vf 0 MAC 02:40:43:80:01:39, spoof checking off, link-state auto, trust on, = query_rss off If we don't set vlan in vf 0, then we can send out in sender XEON X552 eth1= vf 0 with correct VLAN ID and priority, >From tcpdump in mirrored traffic of receiver XEON, we can see the packet ha= s correct VLAN ID and priority, but the problem is packet silently dropped. From DPDK counters, we can't se= e the packet received in receiver XEON X552 eth1 vf0. When we enable promiscuous mode, we can see th= e packets arrive in receiver XEON, and VLAN ID, priority is correct. but can't arrive at DPDK. >From my simple assumption, maybe we need second scenario, to support multip= le priorities. But how to configure to let the packet pass vf 0? Did I miss something in my configuration? Thanks indeed in advance! Best Regards, Dave(Jianyue)