From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f46.google.com (mail-wg0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338E9595D for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 09:46:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id b13so7667699wgh.17 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:46:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8UDwFA8k84LjvkU9MukatWsh8/ki6J0Q62qKDSqI3bA=; b=AKP7qpN5bY11+LpAS2kFkunF3fjfR6bBm62uq08hbE57P54F8FSWdg3BQEvqw3yUVs 8x3Vu9TwLqiAGsDTy+aY4ojRJ/hNFca8yldUPD/LExx16NDr/G79bOP5H6gwjXlHdwv0 tQJllw/X+SnBgzADwDbS281eaICwjv/qI36nfPQ+CoAdlS5edKYapLhbRiExZ7wtL6fc vJfuT/71adDjfpSvXyXTL6GCxeX7YoyH85teyWJt3NNfOGqayGxfTOze8ZnoGo/9JJyy XGnhKiMpLkrSxmouqu+muC3nBmlU7Ds/JBCM86oRNNArq5vUElPTvWzhWKAM4GPmgRUc EmHw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.99.40 with SMTP id en8mr8586075wib.24.1397461617472; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:46:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.237.227 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:46:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <534B8C52.8070003@igel.co.jp> References: <534B8C52.8070003@igel.co.jp> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:46:57 +0300 Message-ID: From: Meir Tseitlin To: "Tetsuya.Mukawa" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Weird behavior of DPDK - ongoing problem 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: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 07:46:58 -0000 Ok, I think I figured it out - this issue was partly my fault. I do work with 1.6r0 and I also use Pcap driver. Pcap driver still contains bug which does not properly release all packets in rte_eth_tx_burst, causing application to run out of memory. I addressed this problem wrongly by manually releasing them before they actually sent. This caused early reallocation. Anyway, thanks for help! Meir Tseitlin On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Tetsuya.Mukawa wrote: > Hi Meir, > > (2014/04/13 19:21), Meir Tseitlin wrote: > > The problem is that in 30% of the cases data packet enters the path of > > control packet instead of expected answer. Which probably means that > after > > my packet type check, the mbuf is overwritten before handled properly. > If you are using DPDK-1.5, it's nice to update to DPDK-1.6, because pcap > pmd of DPDK-1.5 has buffer overflow while receiving data from a target > device/file. And the issue was solved with DPDK-1.6 (in both intel > original code and dpdk.org code). > > Also if multiple processes/threads run on a same cpu, probably, it could > cause a problem like you're facing. > > Regards, > Tetsuya > -- Kind regards, *Meir Tseitlin* Software architect*Mobile:* +972.54.7647417 *Fax:* +972.72.2812365 *Email:* meir.tech@gmail.com *http://il.linkedin.com/in/meirts * *Independent consultant* See who we know in commonWant a signature like this?