From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f46.google.com (mail-oi0-f46.google.com [209.85.218.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 161128E70 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:01:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by oiev17 with SMTP id v17so51129603oie.2 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:01:46 -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=32Ou2iinDXlGLVMONyufhlH1bxItNvVLMxCITwf/Oyk=; b=fhHBUPOg5lFeU/x4FhgQEGZFHmN/IfoUASoS8/mLCVjHNVEgy1Rj0mR28seeLB7/en NXbH+3va1U8ncjY1rJBn27zh/6zo/0oCoWFpknNoLDYE+jMlbGM1Xtg0LGm75VBuGGBU ZzJ4+FHh5MBh1ncFdcgbKXPD4SkZl+NhlpYy5IwYAVHIdpFE9cjVCssIHNuqoMFAHTQn T1NZFBJXdGvIwMuB5cdd7B9xufZQVZ+/dus7k/PDkCEElg5ns6i/dPjzN7oqL/C0WrSz Mk6nV8JYyA1VBiPMIaQOsFT+H0vVw/Y9FbAeA75FvmqkwrSVpPr5qb9iUWLjmhWqXY2f ODjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmpLCiiWXA3Yr0wy/MWiExZPmtosvro32Jur/6Ra35ovCbwQ8qHDMJD+HwkT2uY6qLXoJdK MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.202.180.193 with SMTP id d184mr1793960oif.4.1445263306476; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.202.94.5 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 07:01:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201510191144.t9JBipSw002859@d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> References: <201510191144.t9JBipSw002859@d06av08.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 17:01:46 +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 14:01:47 -0000 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 *