From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C89C8E6F for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:46:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: by oiad129 with SMTP id d129so37126157oia.0 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:46:23 -0700 (PDT) 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=wh6lU9kYja+EPtEGnqgvSaU32AN8WvKofWRH1SVUKXk=; b=jrUHNMlAAcC9/sSLkeI9QXy2kLTKWfPG6hK4GU3YSJQOX+pWNj4OaX+B+kYugKWPi2 4RC7dWzJh6+xQcNUWj1NnlnYoNCLMETgaMFqIue7Qg28pcq6ES37o8Hqk47u80Rbg41a F9Iq2hIEeUCW3LCDcyrEMd/o1Qxk6opnf21t7wZyb1Khya4WjGZf/+pR2f0jPxYcxvrs eSkftzhlie2/2AC8eFH/R/WIeFVT9zWWeToidSpR8WRqVDPu+wc0uaUs1DdlH2zEP1FG +Esn6F0AGNP62MNGn8tQLm+gzB+WhtFt++0j7tQvEYBz0E/hO0YWx4iiwK4qYWxCE0QA zoNg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkZHNXynAcYiKPC4o1hwG3wio0srVsd2jpNaD05QXHUe/FouANQeFjX7wg153eqLhcZoHLJ MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.64.68 with SMTP id n65mr17693835oia.53.1445265982948; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.94.5 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:46:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201510191431.t9JEVGZU009574@d06av07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> References: <201510191144.t9JBipSw002859@d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <201510191431.t9JEVGZU009574@d06av07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:46:22 +0300 Message-ID: From: Arnon Warshavsky To: Eimear Morrissey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e 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: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:46:24 -0000 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 wrote on 10/19/2015 03:01:46 PM: > > > From: Arnon Warshavsky > > 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 *