From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com [209.85.217.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A9B5398 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:03:24 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id x1so48045283lbj.3 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:03:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nfware-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=SmMu0omRtGTfBzXg5i1MQD0FLxnPh66EquZAu5HhUyY=; b=W9NDrJEqBL/of5kkGBSyUbnrAS9DWgfC5hjhmakh6H44Obn3TMKGiqXB8vev5OmL83 FXUptD/pxuP70Xxtgqowslz2Xv/WA0ym+naAtHTgl0SdvNPz68NzWQhEFbNyxXGAgzPY 6vBscWVEqkPLuRy2t67wuPON8hgB9xvFnep7czhe2H2hT9CJ6YAddYNlHb7H1V0iYH1y SXzv4a1OIz8GUh286LffYMZbOy3FigHkM1I/E3EXEl303fKz870WYsY/QiiBu5rxJMUT PYSjQMKmZBl2gI7bFP8WPZBbZc52tZNjsUGNTT5Kwq8U0MDNN9qq7tNElk/ybb0Nu2IR /B5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=SmMu0omRtGTfBzXg5i1MQD0FLxnPh66EquZAu5HhUyY=; b=Ffy0fRUoRE30n7CvMnbq5u2+OwvjSXK9EIDzImrJdIoSN1X8Aso7jTJCS4tFBgx+WK 4t5rtQvlhfd0pu2iDgOm9q9R1ckKgeN1Y5L3sr8boFBeB1weWquABHsqAxFkQ9j78boA 8pAMe6ZP+t1OKedL6Hvf6kimbUkzka3OpyuMqTatFx3zbyYTAGWBZHEx9etr5yATGFgL 4m0tE6PHNFJznMbQ6/PUeQvS/cuOt2KVLhRoOLRHy62sTTvOMf1uA8JowTyPbPKOiE98 Gb1NSbdJm7+gN90AeZCrfm8bicDoU8qrpBOLtI6GpWW0CfAGMszsCs0RJQtzHkCOTg+4 DZ4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKrk6nFPHYdW82BNJuGf2mKY70lgeHikWgLLvNRhTsFJeEQV1c04AIXWNbbs50qFw== X-Received: by 10.112.198.65 with SMTP id ja1mr787913lbc.123.1456499004563; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:03:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mbp-igor.arccn.local?arccn.lab?nfware.lab (vpn.arccn.ru. [95.182.74.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ne8sm1913279lbc.21.2016.02.26.07.03.22 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 26 Feb 2016 07:03:23 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) From: Igor Ryzhov In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 18:03:21 +0300 Message-Id: References: <26CA3897-E24A-4B7B-918F-45679AA896E0@nfware.com> To: =?utf-8?B?0JjQs9C+0YDRjCDQoNGL0LbQvtCy?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Virtio xstats problem 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: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 15:03:25 -0000 Sent a patch: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10887/ = . > 26 =D1=84=D0=B5=D0=B2=D1=80. 2016 =D0=B3., =D0=B2 17:35, Igor Ryzhov = =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB(=D0=B0): >=20 > Hello, Harry. >=20 > Understood about size of packets. It's a bit confusing, because in all = other drivers undersized packet is an error. Maybe we should add another = one size bin for virtio - 60 to 63 bytes? >=20 > I already checked about multicast/broadcast counters - broadcast = packets are counted twice: >=20 > vq->multicast +=3D is_multicast_ether_addr(ea); > vq->broadcast +=3D is_broadcast_ether_addr(ea); >=20 > I think it should be something like: >=20 > if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ea)) { > if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(ea)) { > vq->broadcast++; > } else { > vq->multicast++; > } > } >=20 > Best regards, > Igor >=20 >> 26 =D1=84=D0=B5=D0=B2=D1=80. 2016 =D0=B3., =D0=B2 17:29, Van Haaren, = Harry =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0= =BB(=D0=B0): >>=20 >>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Igor Ryzhov >>> I found some problem with virtio xstats counters. >>>=20 >>> Example: >>>=20 >>> rx_good_packets: 3 >>> rx_good_bytes: 180 >>> rx_errors: 0 >>>=20 >>> rx_q0_good_packets: 3 >>> rx_q0_good_bytes: 180 >>> rx_q0_errors: 0 >>>=20 >>> rx_q0_multicast_packets: 3 >>> rx_q0_broadcast_packets: 1 >>> rx_q0_undersize_packets: 3 >>=20 >>> It means that undersize packets are counted as good packets instead = of errors. >>=20 >> Are you sending 64 byte packets? There are no 4 bytes of CRC on = virtual >> interfaces, so 60 bytes per packet is OK. >>=20 >>> Or maybe >>> size of packet is calculated wrong. >>> I don't have time now to check it more deeply - I can do it sometime = later, but maybe >>> someone want to help. >>=20 >> Are the packets multicast or broadcast? >> It looks like one of the counters there is wrong. >>=20 >>> PS. Is it a common practice to count broadcast packets twice - in = broadcast and multicast >>> counters? >>=20 >> No packet should be counted twice - it must be put into one bucket of = mutli, broad or unicast. >>=20 >> -Harry >=20