From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C981B41CC1; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 18:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31AE40F18; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 18:33:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-pf1-f169.google.com (mail-pf1-f169.google.com [209.85.210.169]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475A340EE3 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 18:33:26 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf1-f169.google.com with SMTP id cg26so924849pfb.5 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:33:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=IQKk+vObJUbAWh9yiEdaH5IE8fG3V/Hf8DqqKawzEXc=; b=o+lVuAaetpL2nDs9dY74J3rxGtWcYs7BUTkcd08m0bz8frfTrEZchQrCbqDKpmhBJC WHvz1lmvYBqbfwBhmt2sro5m1waazF8gQuzx6TwNhN/gCCt4rB1oSBo9R797EoJ6ORqe HkUOuAdh9CMDeyjjh2HhsRcHTSHAspLyWefatAiSvBCjzlK/AHDfOPd3J9X16qXPfO2X 42s8OsqFgeGNJxIfSYvhXqcjpAFQX6KbFIHPEeHkrgYdQ9C6lKjIeMXzTfHRNOHw7XHv 2QN0J0iq+XEZZc/bHwzBPTYWxZsBeW+2CoRu5sfXxFQn715wkWUMQPuoYG/NN7bhvbuc rE6Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=IQKk+vObJUbAWh9yiEdaH5IE8fG3V/Hf8DqqKawzEXc=; b=mHrnaQBTAsedcshm+H5vxJrRIr6pjJSCNcyYb3RUvhu4HdrJYG9Tu5OKwQD14Dys8L aDe24aB2DBGvIqk2FzkHJDE0nbwF3C7k9ucWXYNjzZaibwGtffbkSCgfjqlG8jAZLpWm IRCoSPreFm120ojSLXf0Na/8sdFZSR9v9RxXfYkNVYFG/cQ/gpkDTF7qRP5p0UdHCHIv wog3WMvDPjruLqHNFGbnQPtaRhGmhVF95KKSvl8xOvSuo4wCopuornMAJQ2T6OzBPcLl eBg/Qnl/R4JEcqGqRsENR92L0oMP9rZxkZJJ/1PiEqtMMOl9Hc+WWYS4WOksVP+1UyDC g4sg== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXxt0fPTF0hVkHaOcd1nWcZ/pcqKRM5SfryiEFyfA5ADeqfBYkp q3tIFPu/q+VzIdLH1AGQqV/PCO7oh6RrEiPhV7Ch+Mda X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+eWgvWK/sfuPz6CDpjbIvwp2tQ1v3ygnixznuYr5gAxq2jdecSNnmUrHzzlpf6IHUGnRphIerZU4PslLFbwaU= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9817:0:b0:5a8:d169:581e with SMTP id e23-20020aa79817000000b005a8d169581emr82872pfl.49.1676655205354; Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:33:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <CAGA5_H7TO_ioqKkCpsZy=674yET=6O5K-AW9Jw0vijqB5HH24w@mail.gmail.com> <20230216115109.07067372@hermes.local> <CAGA5_H6kg-6tZozY5hKL8sFBJNrKGd2kTxAdDXitUGcHcFuA6w@mail.gmail.com> <20230217082650.1968dcd8@hermes.local> In-Reply-To: <20230217082650.1968dcd8@hermes.local> From: Rajasekhar Pulluru <pullururajasekhar@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 23:03:12 +0530 Message-ID: <CAGA5_H6VSg=AwFmpoMTZcHW2LubuXMpXZ0UZJLAB_pk4iQonow@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Multiple Tx-Queues not working as expected To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed11db05f4e8b526" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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 --000000000000ed11db05f4e8b526 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Stephen, Have tx queue len was 1024, increasing it to 2048 hasn't changed the behaviour. IXIA is the receiver in this case, which is definitely(and tested) capable of receiving more rate than this. IXIA-TX --->RX(ixgbe-port0)HOST(ixgbe-port1)TX ---> IXIA-RX Captured the rx packets count at ixgbe-port0 and tx packets count at ixgbe-port1. These 2 counters are equal and are also equal to the frames transmitted by IXIA. But the IXIA-RX packets count reports a few hundreds-to-few thousands of packets lost on every run. Thanks & Regards, Rajasekhar On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Stephen Hemminger < stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:30:14 +0530 > Rajasekhar Pulluru <pullururajasekhar@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok Stephen, thanks for the information, I can try that. > > > > One of the problems I see with single Tx Queue mode is that Ixia reports > > packet drops, though I confirmed with the help of counters (before > invoking > > tx burst) that all packets are being sent-out. Dumping HW counters don't > > report any drops in TX. > > Is there a mechanism in DPDK to debug this? > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Rajasekhar > > The common usage in DPDK is to have one transmit queue per DPDK thread > doing > transmits. If the transmit queue is not configured with enough depth. > > The most common packet flow in DPDK is packets getting received, modified > then transmitted. With that pattern, packet loss is at the receiver when > the CPU can't keep up with the packet rate arriving. > --000000000000ed11db05f4e8b526 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Stephen,=C2=A0<div>Have tx queue len was 1024, increasi= ng it to 2048 hasn't changed the behaviour. IXIA is the receiver in thi= s case, which is definitely(and tested) capable of receiving more rate than= this.</div><div><br></div><div>IXIA-TX --->RX(ixgbe-port0)HOST(ixgbe-po= rt1)TX ---> IXIA-RX</div><div>Captured the rx packets count at ixgbe-por= t0 and tx packets count at ixgbe-port1. These 2 counters are equal and are = also equal to the frames transmitted by IXIA.</div><div>But the IXIA-RX pac= kets count reports a few hundreds-to-few thousands of packets lost on every= run.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks & Regards,</div><div>Rajasekhar</= div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div= dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:56 PM Stephen H= emminger <<a href=3D"mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org">stephen@networkp= lumber.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= =3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding= -left:1ex">On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 11:30:14 +0530<br> Rajasekhar Pulluru <<a href=3D"mailto:pullururajasekhar@gmail.com" targe= t=3D"_blank">pullururajasekhar@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > Ok Stephen, thanks for the information, I can try that.<br> > <br> > One of the problems I see with single Tx Queue mode is that Ixia repor= ts<br> > packet drops, though I confirmed with the help of counters (before inv= oking<br> > tx burst) that all packets are being sent-out. Dumping HW counters don= 't<br> > report any drops in TX.<br> > Is there a mechanism in DPDK to debug this?<br> > <br> > Thanks & Regards,<br> > Rajasekhar<br> <br> The common usage in DPDK is to have one transmit queue per DPDK thread doin= g<br> transmits.=C2=A0 If the transmit queue is not configured with enough depth.= <br> <br> The most common packet flow in DPDK is packets getting received, modified<b= r> then transmitted. With that pattern, packet loss is at the receiver when<br= > the CPU can't keep up with the packet rate arriving.<br> </blockquote></div> --000000000000ed11db05f4e8b526--