From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BCEA04B5; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:58:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C82C05B3A; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:58:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-ua1-f47.google.com (mail-ua1-f47.google.com [209.85.222.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60571BF7F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:46:55 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-ua1-f47.google.com with SMTP id r13so11582476uan.6 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 04:46:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JSGWMwIIYrQphKv3EgZC2z5nsI5cOxfCQet6d/3DPvA=; b=Dc0rFteG47Y5MXcDKaM6CTR0OIbV2ZXSnixYJ5KcirnS100RMLGmFEp5JGHYviBBpX 1wXPQEzq/V39tsyaqFGVb31KIcaGpwfTc2dvsIi1hlRGxM54LTt5DApYAvuzislSxvph DjigyTN5/YNaRYaSlCH6sRfNKo+uZr3VagBqOdkOqp1uKEU94kIy8Yn/9fY2uGal/DZD 8B2nXurhJLxVGSM90mHdYJuDkRjEiblgij2l5suyN+d4QvQyX4cRvEZVoBAqTp1TSo4j vQhd1gcsXZ7RYbPG9WoR6j+RbyPcyA3R+w4OqVA83tNbn82e5vrRmW6ZbJCTkRcCEXP1 u0Jw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JSGWMwIIYrQphKv3EgZC2z5nsI5cOxfCQet6d/3DPvA=; b=d9SqhsmKkGX074QsWnOTnC5r1L4KjnowhQ/inoI9gfzEmZzSgi/2TABFPVKT6Y3FVa zn4UwEV5SJS49gmx5xKCVOPvJ4/2049r3BUgTxzT+1xgFt8WFnKrCPr4ck040kVvQx8+ JIE4nTRpCsYUuabiTDejcVdNkcNRBIh0nqzNTrIKVBClhSfp0ZmGcTK2uM7+877JqYIp Y/avKXto8mt7Bt0/z3naXWgppetkr81uEtO3UJs3+1vup9+RDg77qh/ZlNsqmqI8cnHK 4iskeRTYFp1x/VadCh8ghYdv7up3XQgtLniCCdWu6n0qtLH5SlATAhvioZKI2LU6iRv1 aydg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXujiZ2fmIlWCafpidzD/v/+1HKmRUH48DCkeeC/fa+vNcjy+69 KFafgK4PJNb0adPLijxPABnZpV6PukuwIQLwM/M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzheeAoQF35iuYxRDBpzE3i3dhMKh0ZOJmVc+GfVS0CfAccMwmPCNGXbj3GsHBIlLbz81VQmZZh4h5mQ9AfifE= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2690:: with SMTP id t16mr16960222uao.39.1575290814197; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 04:46:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <CACeX4O8HvaQx8s236+w73zxaDfqt2ScZsQ+dHfp_4aJVFxPfTw@mail.gmail.com> <DF4PR8401MB077780C0CDA70DD6A8788151E54C0@DF4PR8401MB0777.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <B1AA4588-1046-4715-8085-4B51007E0F91@intel.com> <CACeX4O-jr=9L4hpFA6ZJdq6PSG_NtDGN6QqfF9vfnFGOy6u5xQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACeX4O-jr=9L4hpFA6ZJdq6PSG_NtDGN6QqfF9vfnFGOy6u5xQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Nirmal Sarkar <nirmal.kisan@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 18:16:40 +0530 Message-ID: <CACeX4O8otJNMk4Jdi8TaTdrq5mwzk0ORskTndvy7TzU0dxz1PQ@mail.gmail.com> To: "Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com> Cc: "Roberts, Lee A." <lee.roberts@hpe.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 17:58:00 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Jumbo Frame in pktgen & dpdk-pktgen X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Hi Keith, I've taken all the changes [in pktgen-3.7.1] you made to support Jumbo Frame. I'm sending packet of 9000 bytes from the sender. [sending screenshot attached]. In the receiver side: (1) started testpmd: [ testpmd -c 0x0f -n 2 -b 03:00.0 -- -i --rxd=3D1024 --txd=3D1024 --burst= =3D144 --txpt=3D32 --txht=3D0 --txfreet=3D0 --rxfreet=3D64 --mbcache=3D200 --portm= ask=3D0x3 --mbuf-size=3D2048 --max-pkt-len=3D9600 ] Now if I do a "show port stats 0", I see "RX-missed" is getting increased where as "RX-bytes" is stuck into a fixed value. ######################## NIC statistics for port 0 ######################## RX-packets: 259 RX-missed: 35728 RX-bytes: 2294220 RX-errors: 0 RX-nombuf: 0 TX-packets: 0 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 0 Throughput (since last show) Rx-pps: 0 Tx-pps: 0 ###########################################################################= # ######################## NIC statistics for port 0 ######################## RX-packets: 259 RX-missed: 71272 RX-bytes: 2294220 RX-errors: 0 RX-nombuf: 0 TX-packets: 0 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 0 Throughput (since last show) Rx-pps: 0 Tx-pps: 0 ###########################################################################= # (2) started pktgen with "-j" option: (i) "MBits/s Rx" is not more than 384 when I send 9K packet, but this value increases to 985~1007 if I send 1K packet. (ii) "Pkt Size" is showing 64 (iii) I'm seeing only Packet of size 5K is getting received when I send 9K packet.[ Please check the attached receive.jpg] >From the above observation in the receiver side, there may be some issue in receiving Jumbo frames. I would also like to mention *Fragmentation* is not required in the send/recv. Regards, N. Sarkar On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:25 AM Nirmal Sarkar <nirmal.kisan@gmail.com> wrote= : > Hello Keith, > > Thanks a lot for your help. > I'm using pktgen-3.7.1. So I'll pull your changes there and check it. > > Regards, > N. Sarkar > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:31 AM Wiles, Keith <keith.wiles@intel.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> > On Nov 19, 2019, at 11:42 AM, Roberts, Lee A. <lee.roberts@hpe.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Nirmal, >> > >> > Here are the changes that I've been using to allow jumbo frames with >> dpdk-19.08 and >> > pktgen-19.10.0: >> > >> > diff -r default/dpdk-19.08/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >> jumbo/dpdk-19.08/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h >> > 462c462 >> > < #define RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_DATAROOM 2048 >> > --- >> >> #define RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_DATAROOM 9600 >> > diff -r default/dpdk-19.08/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h >> jumbo/dpdk-19.08/lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h >> > 33c33 >> > < #define RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN 1518 /**< Maximum frame len, including >> CRC. */ >> > --- >> >> #define RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN 9600 /**< Maximum frame len, including >> CRC. */ >> > diff -r default/pktgen-19.10.0/app/pktgen.c >> jumbo/pktgen-19.10.0/app/pktgen.c >> > 749c749 >> > < else if ( (plen >=3D 1024) && (plen <=3D PG_ETHER_MAX_LEN)) >> > --- >> >> else if ( (plen >=3D 1024) && (plen <=3D 1518)) >> > 753c753 >> > < else if (plen > PG_ETHER_MAX_LEN) >> > --- >> >> else if (plen > 1518) >> > diff -r default/pktgen-19.10.0/lib/common/pg_inet.h >> jumbo/pktgen-19.10.0/lib/common/pg_inet.h >> > 379,380c379,380 >> > < #define ETH_MTU 1500 /* Max MTU for Ethernet = */ >> > < #define ETH_MAX_PKT 1518 /* Max Ethernet frame >> size */ >> > --- >> >> #define ETH_MTU 9600 /* Max MTU for Ethernet = */ >> >> #define ETH_MAX_PKT 9600 /* Max Ethernet frame >> size */ >> > >> > - Lee Roberts >> >> I have a updated pktgen with jumbo support. You need to pass the -j >> option to get jumbo frame support in pktgen. I have not done a lot of >> testing on this version. If you have time please pull the pktgen repo an= d >> switch over to the =E2=80=98dev=E2=80=99 branch and see if this work for= you. I did not use >> your changes here and did it my way :-) >> >> I did not change DPDK, as it seemed like it did not matter if >> RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_DATAROOM changed. I am sure someplace may care if they >> used that define. >> >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Nirmal Sarkar >> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 10:26 AM >> > To: dev@dpdk.org >> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Jumbo Frame in pktgen & dpdk-pktgen >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm trying to explore pktgen and dpdk-pktgen with Jumbo frame. >> > >> > I'm using ubuntu-18.04 system where pktgen is a kernel module and I >> don't have any provision to set it for Jumbo frame. >> > Can you please suggest how to configure Jumbo frame in pktgen ? >> > >> > In dpdk source code, I've modified RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_DATAROOM [ >> *lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h*] value with 9K and built. >> > During testing, I could not send packet size more than 1500 byte. >> > What is the suggestion to overcome this problem ? >> > >> > Regards, >> > N. Sarkar >> >> Regards, >> Keith >> >>