From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lhffjzh@126.com>
Received: from m50-111.126.com (m50-111.126.com [123.125.50.111])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A72E7B3E8;
 Thu,  5 Feb 2015 03:03:23 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=126.com;
 s=s110527; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; bh=cGmGY
 Jrqh1ViZC5C47nhy7zEG8PdyBCdt1/gA6I+ghk=; b=pnJ0AU9jRvvKzRN4kTT5u
 PV38bgUOTC5UBYwaOU+yR4RK10kbsAuSsZ5m0Y+OkPP4Mvo4dPrmsFkyqHzEGDik
 hj/v5NJwcFuGpZyaBa3rAP2eDHXoe+0+ZjC63moh0pHhBiXMaawFEGf5kHtsXhX0
 Swij6tKK77KFv5HQiioxps=
Received: from qqPC (unknown [59.108.29.42])
 by smtp5 (Coremail) with SMTP id jtKowABnwTRlz9JUc0_2AA--.1064S2;
 Thu, 05 Feb 2015 10:03:19 +0800 (CST)
From: "lhffjzh" <lhffjzh@126.com>
To: <dev@dpdk.org>,
	<dts@dpdk.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:03:16 +0800
Message-ID: <007801d040e7$e84d0890$b8e719b0$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdBA5+UQFz6nFA9jTpabU6Guw9bEcg==
Content-Language: zh-cn
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: AagU A55z Bu4Z D0KQ Gjl7 Iz4x I4Jw KS3I OOKH Q9u2 RZpn SRCO
 aRWD b2ag b+1S cXii; 3;
 ZABlAHYAQABkAHAAZABrAC4AbwByAGcAOwBkAHQAcwBAAGQAcABkAGsALgBvAHIAZwA7AG0AYQBpAG4AdABhAGkAbgBlAHIAcwBAAGQAcABkAGsALgBvAHIAZwA=;
 Sosha1_v1; 7; {895AAE8F-78FB-4EB1-A05D-2C54D95DC338};
 bABoAGYAZgBqAHoAaABAADEAMgA2AC4AYwBvAG0A; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:03:11 GMT;
 QgBvAG4AZAAgAGYAZQBhAHQAdQByAGUAIABjAGEAbgAnAHQAIAByAHUAbgBuAGkAbgBnACAAdwBlAGwAbAAgAG8AbgAgADQAMABHACAAaQA0ADAAZQAgAE4ASQBDAHMA
x-cr-puzzleid: {895AAE8F-78FB-4EB1-A05D-2C54D95DC338}
X-CM-TRANSID: jtKowABnwTRlz9JUc0_2AA--.1064S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Uf129KBjvdXoWrur4DKr18Jw18Cr45Zw43Wrg_yoW3trc_C3
 48J34jgwsaqa1qkw4YyF48tw43KF45C3yUKF4vqryrGF1vvrWDWr95CwsIva15ur40qa43
 tFn3JF92v343ujkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT
 9fnUUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU8ksqtUUUUU==
X-Originating-IP: [59.108.29.42]
X-CM-SenderInfo: hokiwyl2k6ij2wof0z/1tbiGBmXWUl16m3SYgAAsE
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: maintainers@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] Bond feature can't running well on 40G i40e NICs
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 02:03:25 -0000

Hi DPDK maintainers,

 

We encounter confusion recently which is 40G i40e NICs bond issue, our
bonding logic as below, the ixgbe bonding is running well both 1.7.1 and
1.8.0, but i40e are all failed.

 

Create bond port -> config slave ports(tx/rx) -> start slave ports -> add
slave port into bond port -> start bond port -> tx/rx on bond port

 

On 1.7.1, the 40G bonding port always can't be started, them status are down
and speed are 0.

On 1.8.0, the 40G bonding port start and send network package correctly, but
can't receive any package with BONDING_MODE_BALANCE
<http://www.dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__bond_8h.html#a6a70bf21c5b4ad3a1368615
349cb9771>  mode and all policies like BALANCE_XMIT_POLICY_LAYER2. In
BONDING_MODE_ROUND_ROBIN
<http://www.dpdk.org/doc/api/rte__eth__bond_8h.html#aad34f918b8877dc6a27322d
03dc4184f>  mode, bonding port can send/receive a few network packages(less
than 100) per seconds.

 

Could you please help us for this? any clue is welcome.

 

 

Thanks and Regards,

Haifeng