From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay02.ispgateway.de (smtprelay02.ispgateway.de [80.67.29.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161C98F9B for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:29:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [87.172.149.111] (helo=nb-martin.allegro) by smtprelay02.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1Zu0vq-0003Ey-8f; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:29:06 +0100 To: "Van Haaren, Harry" , "dev@dpdk.org" References: <56274EFE.5040706@allegro-packets.com> <5639CB88.7040108@allegro-packets.com> From: Martin Weiser X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1010 Message-ID: <563A3250.8000504@allegro-packets.com> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:29:04 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Df-Sender: bWFydGluLndlaXNlckBhbGxlZ3JvLXBhY2tldHMuY29t Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ixgbe: ierrors counter spuriously increasing in DPDK 2.1 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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 16:29:07 -0000 On 04.11.15 16:54, Van Haaren, Harry wrote: >> From: Martin Weiser [mailto:martin.weiser@allegro-packets.com] >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ixgbe: ierrors counter spuriously increasing i= n DPDK 2.1 >> The >> rx-error which showed up immediately after starting the interface is >> gone since this was probably caused by mac_remote_errors.=20 > Improvement - that's good. > >> But we still >> see a huge number of rx-errors although all packets are received >> properly and when looking at the extended stats those come from the >> rx_l3_l4_xsum_error counter. > That is useful information, good to know that statistic is the root cau= se. > >> In our setup we are dealing with lots of UDP traffic which does have t= he >> UDP checksum set to 0 (which to my knowledge is allowed for UDP). > Yes indeed checksum calculation for UDP is optional, and should be set = to zero when not performed. > >> This >> traffic seems to cause those rx_l3_l4_xsum_errors. >> When doing the same >> test with other NICs (e.g. XL710) no rx-errors are accounted. > So this is a ixgbe bug, and listed in the errata, item 43 "Integrity Er= ror Reported for IPv4/UDP Packets with Zero Checksum" in http://www.intel= =2Ecom/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/82599= -10-gbe-controller-spec-update.pdf=20 > >> For the generic stats interface I would prefer only packets that could= >> not be received to be accounted in the rx-error counter regardless of >> the actual NIC. What do you think? > Agreed. I've sent a patch that removes "xec", the register name for l3_= l4_xsum_errors: > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/8678/ > > Would you test it please? -Harry I have tested the patch and now everything looks good. Best regards, Martin