From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0FA462B0; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:09:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDC94281D; Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:09:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-oa1-f43.google.com (mail-oa1-f43.google.com [209.85.160.43]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60BC40E44; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:26:02 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-oa1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2bc52407b78so1446147fac.0; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 05:26:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740403561; x=1741008361; darn=dpdk.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ta4A3VEk4tC7juFXEhZk3a5rC0kr3a1RGapUXSPN4C0=; b=JDvWogbp/CTOUIwWsepLYaDTTUt9pLr9w2jiWZ/zlnAB8QgWjIKkRks1BVrndE81FM wjIMKUv0N8TeAOSxzV1jnowjhd4zMleisEZ6RWCSPrZVOEkPqDwgg6VpCtuKH9Ov+TTp CYM7H5osX5QBao7T1f9kT7XF+eSZGynGtXT8FYXpA1ht9yiURjkfODx8wbZvFTC/3T2M r9CyNI8lhQX6uqNqn2KYJTLZL80YbDLCvWAuvpI2eVvbZXU5elPWoYKgDynrhwUktWT5 MQTW/dURqXb9cCHjnX3C1vyKYwXCs/mjgZwumGElrmEIw7my+Cq4IUVw/ef0f41l8WOi SEdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740403561; x=1741008361; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Ta4A3VEk4tC7juFXEhZk3a5rC0kr3a1RGapUXSPN4C0=; b=sGw/D5ejle890azKN92TKkW9DLsJ2497h6jUI79BrtHfov4gawgIrF8tsa8XchteVB XYUc2drBUSQJfAZ1baJLpJVSKmbMInYugZ7QQXM4eIscbaA4qoStep8jiR71XyLijnF3 jx5ooKf1gaPbFMzxFBlDFdL4P+H6YTlXlbNwaTClpQ42CMv+wkaekdG+koBSczp4Gn8J dr5lc1sSvqwSDvA53CuLKlqiFtWnWA5S3n+MRTkFQyKl/H2lSt5Sw7cmUk0mM53ymCOm uaNRDq1eqBGkKbpj9OVyMVfXjl48+msZStWFe/knSBtlRiPzBstNdTjHK4yvHGI7JgAb TErg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywbcs0kjHXxJYSiSg0HBcc/Veg/H+QlZUWUUPqx6eYAmpx2YHZ3 Jb2VJo+Q2FfY3Fzy1aIztRGWE3TWhyQHYu+XbFh04h4hwhSKPnUruhVlRroaL0Mv7JyEuQ4gRD3 msVpZUNBGAUYVtCy1D71uFpcFd2ShjspIoEs= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncur2k3Yb6D4va1zLp16C/qkc5SxRutrsQ9fj5S6JoI8xaiBm4bq5FSZM9hFPqX xISnjv/IDfcwOLs0HVdr5NcC2ovP/hoVXHmiF6IfWbvxJWOO7h0Mu3WS04Ulpicq6g6b7LrU/bd bBE3TCo5uoLWfuktw+93+/1cTZnWK7b4GlRGE+5UU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG2vmFfJ0TCMPLBHKs1RF3LwhN6HnDQeokNEse4G0KAYOfWXBUVRkCFWqJNDDMWHV48uRV6w9yARA85mOltACI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:80b1:b0:3f4:c2b:def7 with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3f4247e3c50mr9242131b6e.33.1740403561371; Mon, 24 Feb 2025 05:26:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Aman Thakur Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 18:55:50 +0530 X-Gm-Features: AWEUYZnOdHwaAnb-ptnRhtTifmS_-xleqfj6E_XvYzjmELvNvIyrm8hWolXuReg Message-ID: Subject: Incorrect link speed for DPDK Bond in Balance RR Mode To: "users@dpdk.org" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000a9fc2062ee3483f" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:09:26 +0100 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org --0000000000000a9fc2062ee3483f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Dear Sir/ma'am, I've created a DPDK bond with two slave interfaces, each capable of 1Gbps (mtu 1500 and both Full duplex). I'm using bonding mode 0 (balance RR - round-robin). Theoretically, this should give me a 2Gbps link. However, the bond interface only reports a speed of 1Gbps, and I've noticed that one of the slave interfaces is never active. Here's a breakdown of my setup and the issue: Here's a breakdown of my setup and the issue: - *DPDK Version:* 21.11.9 - *Bonding Mode:* 0 (balance RR) - *Number of Slaves:* 2 - *Slave Speed:* 1Gbps each, same MTU and each operating at full duplex. - *Expected Bond Speed:* 2Gbps - *Observed Bond Speed:* 1Gbps - *Problem:* One slave interface remains inactive. Both slaves were active *before* calling rte_eth_dev_start(BOND_PORT). - *Lcore Usage:* Currently using 1 lcore. Tried with 2 and 3 lcores, but the problem remains. - Output of *rte_eth_bond_active_slaves_get *gives 1 implying only 1 slave is active at a time. I'm following the DPDK bonding example (specifically the port initialization) found here: https://doc.dpdk.org/api-17.08/examples_2bond_2main_8c-example.html, ( for reference only I've used sample from 21.11.9 only ) *My Questions:* 1. What could be causing one of the slaves to become inactive after rte_eth_dev_start(BOND_PORT)? 2. Is there a specific configuration or step I might be missing that's preventing the bond from utilizing both slaves in round-robin mode? 3. How can I troubleshoot this issue to determine why the second slave is not participating in the bond? Are there specific DPDK tools or logs I should be examining? 4. Are there any known compatibility issues or limitations with balance RR mode that could explain this behavior? 5. Could the number of lcores be related to this issue, even though I've tried multiple values? Is there a minimum or recommended number of lcores for bond mode 0 with 2 slaves? Thanks and Regards Aman Thakur --0000000000000a9fc2062ee3483f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Sir/ma'am,=C2=A0

I've created a DPDK b= ond with two slave interfaces, each capable of=20 1Gbps (mtu 1500 and both Full duplex). I'm using bonding mode 0 (balanc= e RR - round-robin). Theoretically, this should give me a 2Gbps link.=20 However, the bond interface only reports a speed of 1Gbps, and I've=20 noticed that one of the slave interfaces is never active. Here's a breakdown of my setup and the issue:

Here's a breakd= own of my setup and the issue:

  • DPDK Version:=C2=A021.11.9
  • Bonding Mode: 0 (balance RR)
  • Number of Slaves: 2
  • Slave Speed: 1Gbps each, same MTU and each operating a= t full duplex.
  • Expected Bond Speed: 2Gbps
  • Observed Bond Speed: 1Gbps
  • Problem: One slave interface remains inactive. Both s= laves were active before calling rte_eth_dev_start(BOND_PORT= ).
  • Lcore Usage: Currently using 1 lcore. Tried with 2 an= d 3 lcores, but the problem remains.
  • Output of rte_eth_bond_acti= ve_slaves_get gives 1 implying only 1 slave is active at a time.=C2=A0<= /li>

I'm following the DPDK bonding example (specifically t= he port initialization) found here: https:= //doc.dpdk.org/api-17.08/examples_2bond_2main_8c-example.html, ( for re= ference=C2=A0only I've used sample from 21.11.9 only )

My= Questions:

  1. What could be causing one of the slaves to become inactive after = rte_eth_dev_start(BOND_PORT)?
  2. Is there a specific configuration or step I might be missing that's= preventing the bond from utilizing both slaves in round-robin mode?
  3. How can I troubleshoot this issue to determine why the second slave is = not participating in the bond? Are there specific DPDK tools or logs I sho= uld be examining?
  4. Are there any known compatibility issues or limitations with balance RR= mode that could explain this behavior?
  5. Could the number of lcores be related to this issue, even though I'= ve tried multiple values? Is there a minimum or recommended number of lcor= es for bond mode 0 with 2 slaves?

Thanks and Regards=C2=A0

<= p>Aman Thakur


--0000000000000a9fc2062ee3483f--