From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com [209.85.213.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236E6C3C2 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:53:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by igbdj2 with SMTP id dj2so40648894igb.1 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:53:41 -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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=PnO2fIwywvvCEa55RfTGSMby/dePvXOmXnT2So6CIBw=; b=Bw68EgXYqZgK55XOiLioj1BdMzghmf5NNP0qM+c/pQxeGhFMQoRG+RQiDwD6UQKsf9 tzJkKo1ObgsgaNNqT0Pk/hjNHWjK0SHfDwLKjyDjiC0isgWARObww5VteLZbIMjUfdbN dN9Z0JUw0HhjlQMmRODe6fSdthI5G8ACgl6JhNwdzbr/Y4Np12pCczogURx9/KPt5L6Z vJoCgH4vuaiR+3ELhqqC5rM/2sn2Yh4q6tMX8PKfN2IcPyTpxox+zYn1Lh+OFUwve+T8 6k7bOUn5gE6/NrwEycez0i65lhIPU4RU6j43SNSGrZeTYoMdWhrCyT7chOh1DXzOuIhx FZnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRWMUa0CTq0McNGchIC56lLYWFB3uIMg6JXanJtVSk5hbKAfcRNgt4NEPksh5gVggZhuRA X-Received: by 10.50.60.102 with SMTP id g6mr11035643igr.29.1445442821415; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:53:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.16.166 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:53:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <56274EFE.5040706@allegro-packets.com> References: <56274EFE.5040706@allegro-packets.com> From: Andriy Berestovskyy Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:53:21 +0200 Message-ID: To: Martin Weiser Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ixgbe: ierrors counter spuriously increasing in DPDK 2.1 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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:53:42 -0000 Yes Marcin, The issue was discussed here: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023229.html You can either fix the ierrors in ixgbe_dev_stats_get() or implement a workaround in your app getting the extended statistics and counting out some of extended counters from the ierrors. Here is an example: https://github.com/Juniper/contrail-vrouter/commit/72f6ca05ac81d0ca5e7eb93c6ffe7a93648c2b00#diff-99c1f65a00658c7d38b3d1b64cb5fd93R1306 Regards, Andriy On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Martin Weiser wrote: > Hi, > > with DPDK 2.1 we are seeing the ierrors counter increasing for 82599ES > ports without reason. Even directly after starting test-pmd the error > counter immediately is 1 without even a single packet being sent to the > device: > > ./testpmd -c 0xfe -n 4 -- --portmask 0x3 --interactive > ... > testpmd> show port stats all > > ######################## NIC statistics for port 0 ######################## > RX-packets: 0 RX-missed: 0 RX-bytes: 0 > RX-badcrc: 0 RX-badlen: 0 RX-errors: 1 > RX-nombuf: 0 > TX-packets: 0 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 0 > ############################################################################ > > ######################## NIC statistics for port 1 ######################## > RX-packets: 0 RX-missed: 0 RX-bytes: 0 > RX-badcrc: 0 RX-badlen: 0 RX-errors: 1 > RX-nombuf: 0 > TX-packets: 0 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 0 > ############################################################################ > > > When packet forwarding is started the ports perform normally and > properly forward all packets but a huge number of ierrors is counted: > > testpmd> start > ... > testpmd> show port stats all > > ######################## NIC statistics for port 0 ######################## > RX-packets: 9011857 RX-missed: 0 RX-bytes: 5020932992 > RX-badcrc: 0 RX-badlen: 0 RX-errors: 9011753 > RX-nombuf: 0 > TX-packets: 9026250 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 2922375542 > ############################################################################ > > ######################## NIC statistics for port 1 ######################## > RX-packets: 9026250 RX-missed: 0 RX-bytes: 2922375542 > RX-badcrc: 0 RX-badlen: 0 RX-errors: 9026138 > RX-nombuf: 0 > TX-packets: 9011857 TX-errors: 0 TX-bytes: 5020932992 > ############################################################################ > > > When running the exact same test with DPDK version 2.0 no ierrors are > reported. > Is anyone else seeing strange ierrors being reported for Intel Niantic > cards with DPDK 2.1? > > Best regards, > Martin > -- Andriy Berestovskyy