From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AF65684 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:45:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id gm9so14664047lab.12 for ; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 04:45:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NPZnOoE2QJEVIIXeqLAcsO/1cmVQIajFySlyqINUris=; b=UZBrVGME3eDVXsWjtB90MiEwdFGx2ecbSwWRBrkJrxIGEZ1jd80rNaxusNYwfGntOr NJesspvGt64jVuKTckBN6DW+wvOlEf+5NCj4I/9OGmgIKTTImTx2R72UEmSIYZNhjC/L j3HdbLN/ywrAulbtRt7Lk+oOYjyrnOT9ffzKpcL+9QKXuF8pVbE0D3Q9Y8lt9379ZRfX EpKNrRoX3TPRKBIHq7UPkrB+crm9R1NuvmdoBmsx1S4OI0V5ePUpWL22ZPLeZ4zGLkyZ OV3G3VJQPacUat9IiOuvdw5tQhJVsto9OoohZby/cEdA27910VvTUo/Nuhwuu6oPZFwd FTAQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnsXhU6w7PZh7Ua9QpeEY/pc2FD8R9KmV+FW2kQH4NI/yvekndxduo9tNCSOHfaIr9r/BJA MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.88.4 with SMTP id bc4mr21393777lab.5.1420807537169; Fri, 09 Jan 2015 04:45:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.215.208 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Jan 2015 04:45:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 14:45:37 +0200 Message-ID: From: Alex Markuze To: "Zhang, Helin" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] IOMMU and VF 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: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 12:45:37 -0000 Thanks Zhang, I'm familiar with issue you have mentioned, but I don't think it is related. The OS is a RHEL 6.5 which is kernel 2.6.32 (With what ever newer patches RH have cherry picked). Moving to DPDK 1.8 is not a viable option right now for us. Could you please elaborate on the new mac types patches and how it can relate to the issue at hand. This feels like an iommu issue as we are able to configure the ports successfully, but there is no traffic in or out. Which leads me to believe that the RX/TX descriptors are at fault. Another clue that I've already mentioned is these snippets from demise: Looking at the demise I se this: IOMMU: hardware identity mapping for device 0000:83:00.0 IOMMU: hardware identity mapping for device 0000:83:00.1 Which include the PF but not the VF. IOMMU has a separate translation table for each peripheral device(just like the cpu has a separate translation table and TLB for each process). I'm guessing that the IOMMU is not SRIOV aware and should maintain a separate translation table for each virtual function(unless I'm missing something). If this is true I would expect to see that an identity ,capping has been set for the VFs as well. It maybe some config issue. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Zhang, Helin wrote: > Hi Alex > > Could you help to try 1.8? I remember there might a fix of supporting some > newly mac types. > In addition, what's the kernel version of your host? We observed issues > recently before kernel version 3.18. I'd suggest to try kernel 3.18. > > Hopefully it is helpful! > > Regards, > Helin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Alex Markuze > > Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 1:57 AM > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] IOMMU and VF > > > > Hi, Guys, > > I'm trying to run a DPDK(1.7.1) application that has been previously > tested on > > Xen/VMware VM's. I have both iommu=pt and intel_iommu=on. > > I would expect things to work as usual but unfortunately the VF I'm > taking is > > unable to send or receive any packets (The TXQ gets filled out, and the > packets > > never leave). > > > > Looking at the demise I se this: > > IOMMU: hardware identity mapping for device 0000:83:00.0 > > IOMMU: hardware identity mapping for device 0000:83:00.1 > > > > These are the bus addresses of the physical functions. > > I don't know If I need to see the VF's listed here as well. > > > > Any suggestions? >