[dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e

[dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e

[Eimear Morrissey]

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

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

[Arnon Warshavsky]

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
<arnon@qwilt.com>*

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

[Eimear Morrissey]

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

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

[Arnon Warshavsky]

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
<arnon@qwilt.com>*

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

[Eimear Morrissey]

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

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

[Arnon Warshavsky]

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>*

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

[Eimear Morrissey]

Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com> wrote on 10/22/2015 12:12:47 PM:

> From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
> To: Eimear Morrissey/Ireland/IBM@IBMIE
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Date: 10/22/2015 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e
>
> 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 noother
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

Thanks for the thread link - I didn't see it when I searched.

As for firmware - ethtool gives me:
driver: i40e
version: 1.3.39.1
firmware-version: 4.26 0x80001609 0.0.0
bus-info: 0000:86:00.0
supports-statistics: yes
supports-test: yes
supports-eeprom-access: yes
supports-register-dump: yes
supports-priv-flags: yes

Which is lower than the version from the NVM update tool (4.5 as you said)
but attempting to update just gives

Intel(R) Ethernet NVM Update Tool
NVMUpdate version 1.25.20.03
Copyright (C) 2013 - 2015 Intel Corporation.


WARNING: TO AVOID DAMAGE TO YOUR DEVICE, DO NOT EXIT OR REBOOT OR POWER OFF
THE SYSTEM DURING THIS UPDATE
Inventory in progress. Please wait [+.........]


Num Description                            Device-Id B:D   Adapter Status
=== ====================================== ========= =====
====================
01) Intel(R) Ethernet Controller X710 for  8086-1572 134:00 Update not
available

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

[Arnon Warshavsky]

Hi Eimar

I had to build i40e driver from latest source , unload the one that came
with my machine, load the one I built and only then I managed to get the
"update available" when running the nvmupdate app.
Machine was up from boot without running dpdk stuff (i.e no nic unbinding
and such) prior to running the update app.
Oddly enough, it updated my fw to from 4.23 only to 4.33, and after another
reboot and another run it got from 4.33 to 4.4.
After that it reported that the fw is up to date.

After all that - still no drop counters when packets are dropped...

/Arnon


On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Eimear Morrissey <
eimear.morrissey@ie.ibm.com> wrote:

> Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com> wrote on 10/22/2015 12:12:47 PM:
>
> > From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon@qwilt.com>
> > To: Eimear Morrissey/Ireland/IBM@IBMIE
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > Date: 10/22/2015 12:12 PM
>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e
> >
> > 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
> noother 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
>
> Thanks for the thread link - I didn't see it when I searched.
>
> As for firmware - ethtool gives me:
> driver: i40e
> version: 1.3.39.1
> firmware-version: 4.26 0x80001609 0.0.0
> bus-info: 0000:86:00.0
> supports-statistics: yes
> supports-test: yes
> supports-eeprom-access: yes
> supports-register-dump: yes
> supports-priv-flags: yes
>
> Which is lower than the version from the NVM update tool (4.5 as you said)
> but attempting to update just gives
>
> Intel(R) Ethernet NVM Update Tool
> NVMUpdate version 1.25.20.03
> Copyright (C) 2013 - 2015 Intel Corporation.
>
>
> WARNING: TO AVOID DAMAGE TO YOUR DEVICE, DO NOT EXIT OR REBOOT OR POWER
> OFF THE SYSTEM DURING THIS UPDATE
> Inventory in progress. Please wait [+.........]
>
>
> Num Description                            Device-Id B:D   Adapter Status
> === ====================================== ========= =====
> ====================
> 01) Intel(R) Ethernet Controller X710 for  8086-1572 134:00 Update not
> available
>
>


-- 

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