From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8693595D7
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:35:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21])
 by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2016 02:35:00 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,497,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="1001423091"
Received: from smonroyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.32])
 ([10.237.221.32])
 by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 20 Jun 2016 02:34:58 -0700
To: Chinmaya Dwibedy <ckdwibedy@gmail.com>
References: <CAMHS8RGXRCNPqpEpbQ68Fm5oLmTFU=wbR2mhmbtaRp=W4a6ETg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ee2ca80f-b202-55fd-07d3-fd7ef4c6759e@intel.com>
 <CAMHS8REmS2jLn=V56CqKBzhDwsnWqgMP+izPQ5h-TQ28Eszbnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bf518a3b-c899-c66c-082e-db4c1d61e929@intel.com>
 <CAMHS8RHNFBem6eFV5MNibv5=W8F3yH4gnuuBBswE11Fnb=vaYA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Message-ID: <6e0329b1-d67c-3b23-55d2-dc88b78f6f2a@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:34:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMHS8RHNFBem6eFV5MNibv5=W8F3yH4gnuuBBswE11Fnb=vaYA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Issue with ipsec-secgw sample application on VM
 using Intel QAT device (pass-through mode)
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:35:00 -0000

On 20/06/2016 10:08, Chinmaya Dwibedy wrote:
>
> Hi Sergio,
>
>
> Agreed.  We might not dequeue the same amount of crypto ops we just 
> previously enqueued, it's asynchronous. But in this case, I have sent 
> just one UDP packet. So there will be one crypto ops. Right?  Also I 
> put a sleep (50) after the rte_crypto_enqueue_burst() function in 
> ipsec_processing() (ipsec.c) , so as to allow more time  ( for QAT 
> device) for processing. Still getting the same result i.e., the 
> rte_crypto_dequeue_burst () functionreturns zero.
>
>
> In case of S/W crypto device (i.e., AESNI),   the VM gets inbound UDP 
> packets on Port 1/eth1, encapsulates (after consulting its SPD) in an 
> IPsec ESP packet and sends to its peer through Port 0/eth0 interface.
>
>
> Yes, the security policy, security association and Routing 
> entries/configurations are exactly same. Please feel free to let me 
> know if you need additional information.
>

Could you try to run 'app/test' application then run 
'cryptodev_qat_autotest' ? That is a functional test for cryptodev QAT PMD.

Sergio