Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e

[Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>]

You are right.
Given this thread updated today
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023480.html (updates from
today still not there)
It seems I was too quick to jump to conclusion.

Just in case, when bound to i40e, can you run ethtool -i on that interface?
It should show the fw version.

thanks
/Arnon

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Eimear Morrissey <
eimear.morrissey@ie.ibm.com> wrote:

> Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com> wrote on 10/19/2015 03:46:22 PM:
>
> > From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
> > To: Eimear Morrissey/Ireland/IBM@IBMIE
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Date: 10/19/2015 03:46 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e
> >
> > Hi Eimear
> >
> > This is the link I have.
> > https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24769
> >
> > I guess that the version seen in the web page comes from a different
> > parallel universe.
> > You should see the actual fw version inside the zip file.
>
> > Thanks
> > /Arnon
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Eimear Morrissey <
> eimear.morrissey@ie.ibm.com
> > > wrote:
> > Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com> wrote on 10/19/2015 03:01:46 PM:
> >
> > > From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
> > > To: Eimear Morrissey/Ireland/IBM@IBMIE
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Date: 10/19/2015 03:01 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Eimear,
> > >
> > > I just experienced the same problem with firmware versions 4.23 and
> > > 4.33 (dpdk 2.0). Did not get to try the latest which is 4.5.
> > > Looking at the code, I don't see that this counter is being read any
> > > differently than its peer counters and I suspect the nic itself.
> > > Can you tell which firmware version you were using?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > > /Arnon
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Eimear Morrissey <
> > eimear.morrissey@ie.ibm.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm having issues measuring packets dropped at the NIC in both the
> 2.0.0
> > > and 2.1.0 versions of DPDK on an X710 Intel NIC.
> > >
> > > In dpdk-2.0.0
> > > Using rte_eth_xstats the rx_packets and rx_bytes counters increase as
> > > expected, however rx_missed_errors is always 0 even if a sleep
> statement is
> > > added between calls to rte_eth_rx_burst. However changing the coremask
> so
> > > the application is running on a different socket than the card will
> cause
> > > rx_missed_errors to increment for a limited amount of time and then
> stop.
> > > Using rte_eth_stats, ipackets is incremented on packet receipt but the
> > > q_ipackets and q_errors arrays remain zero. Even crossing sockets
> seems to
> > > have no effect on q_errors.
> > >
> > > In dpdk-2.1.0 the behaviour is the same as above, except that the
> number of
> > > fields returned by rte_eth_xstats_get is reduced (no rx_missed errors
> at
> > > all) so running on a different socket no longer has any noticeable
> effect
> > > on the stats.
> > >
> > > My understanding from the API manual is that the rte_eth_stats q_errors
> > > array should count the packets missed because software isn't polling
> fast
> > > enough, but that doesn't seem to be the case? Is there a standard DPDK
> way
> > > to check this? The application is a forwarding one so there's no other
> way
> > > to estimate drop except through NIC rx.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Eimear
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Arnon Warshavsky
> > > Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 |
> arnon@qwilt.com
>
> > Hi Arnon,
> >
> > The firmware version I'm using is 4.26. Where do you see the latest
> > is 4.5 - I can't find anything obvious in the download centre?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Eimear
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Arnon Warshavsky
> > Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 |
> arnon@qwilt.com
>
>
> I tried installing the firmware but on running the NVM update tool I just
> get "No updates available for your device" which makes me think that (for
> my SKU at least) I'm on the latest firmware.
>
> Also, if I bind the card back to the i40e driver, I can force the dropped
> count in ifconfig to increase by decreasing the rx ring size so I'm not
> convinced it's entirely a hardware issue.
>
> Regards,
> Eimear
>
>


-- 

*Arnon Warshavsky*
*Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 | arnon@qwilt.com
<arnon@qwilt.com>*