From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEA358D4 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:33:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Nov 2015 02:33:58 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,307,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="822037448" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.64]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 17 Nov 2015 02:33:18 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:33:17 +0025 Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:33:17 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Ariel Rodriguez Message-ID: <20151117103316.GA22264@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <20151110105417.GD29836@bricha3-MOBL3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] URGENT please help. Issue on ixgbe_tx_free_bufs version 2.0.0 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:34:00 -0000 On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 07:58:27PM -0300, Ariel Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Bruce, im going to list the results after the testīs. > > I will start with the second hint you proposed: > > 2) I upgrade our custom dpdk application with the latest dpdk code (2.1.0) > and the issue still there. > > 1) I test the load balancer app with the latest dpdk code (2.1.0) with the nic > 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ with tapped traffic and the results are: > > a) Work fine after 6 hours of running. (For timing issues i cant wait > longer but the issue always happend before 5 hours of running so i supposed > we are fine in this test). > > b) I made a change to load balancer code to behave as our dpdk > application in the workers code. This change is just for giving the > workers code enough load (load in terms of core frecuency) that made the rx > core drop several packet because ring between workers and rx core is full. > (Our application drop several packets because the workers code are not fast > enough). > > In the last test, the segmentation fault arise , just in the same > line that i previously report. > What is the workload you are putting into the worker core? Can you provide a diff for the load balancer app that reproduces this issue, since from your description the problem may be in the extra code added in. /Bruce