From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f53.google.com (mail-it0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5800D1B389 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:56:08 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-it0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 196so2307851iti.5 for ; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 04:56:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Wti9CqGq+cWDO9rtUO+qNYUZfFjXv8cLeZ+2Llt+2GI=; b=mTA8a6KfTgisLxQqUZLIWatsZZBOJpTiQLQszln8V60SxGGDJekLTd9PaI7e1V1vAr xF6Zr2SYKqQ0f4PdVLhQY+xFl/j281fCrwbRv7pKzaA3oFJEq5OP76DlKQcmz5SR1aEL /I0K99sZkJ92Sw/Sipiyr0aIZHoqIiM+lPZMppyiwzcGo6OMs/sUv7V8OEuIBMGGhusP pYIOJMy9fBogc1bFNUE52xruQouY7XHWzVjp1X7GD+K4/SF2UnRAtQ7wtafIsFXK7onK xgOLXzT1RooUU39yCrGJVx3JeThDnDMe7AJpDVcWxbA6BstNPEHVWsr8vyzd+t3Z483U mEpw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Wti9CqGq+cWDO9rtUO+qNYUZfFjXv8cLeZ+2Llt+2GI=; b=LktKuAoe5V/JfjEm0Tv/xKTqE5bwThhutCtyJpgHdRQLaAyF3a0d3mI78mEQ+BmJUL xqkLFEsppskDTGpKhb1ZMvszGXpV3ap+Whhs7oZNaUkPrxx1+THxA/6ixfhznYnc4+YF rK3W7+P+wEfkMMViZ7F3yXUDtpMDmOfO1pWVhnEvzs+PC9XfZBLC7pbI9UdPIGwyLs2I 1nPqXAtOTwaXZ10+ySQchPfsbAciUr5vPW9qx3NDQCFX94PKnVTEmEifGMviAJeLx+A6 c4BthYcC86iDvMk+AeCMXfaWGS0RJXjt3/1OC1wdm4FRITlqE+Ew6VlcHmfN+B+szSBz j59A== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPAGI/vUXwVx6Bq6zI4/xUxM1TteH8B0BZL1LxeFbW6Y7riiHf5U BXV158AFSnir/XIoF4vDcHi3Pqp6HrqxztAizTQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226dtynaptJaP1t3Ad1kzrAiEW55eIAZ4kMr52IXUjQgGElQjPqwN87buPsKeqBye/JPjoJo384ob+U3CmVxm5k= X-Received: by 10.36.112.206 with SMTP id f197mr2639728itc.133.1517921767799; Tue, 06 Feb 2018 04:56:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.214.68 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Feb 2018 04:56:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Don maillist Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 06:56:07 -0600 Message-ID: To: Alex Kiselev Cc: Kyle Larose , users X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:55:59 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] xl710 NIC doesn't receive 1518 bytes packets X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2018 12:56:08 -0000 Interesting we are using OVS+DPDK with DPDKBOND and LACP with an MTU of 9000. We have not seen any issues except when mixing DPDK and non DPDK ports on the same NIC. Intel is fixing that but otherwise, we are good. I do know that Redhat uses 16.02.1 DPDK. Best Regards, Don On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Alex Kiselev wrote: > Hi Kyle. > > 2018-01-26 16:47 GMT+03:00 Kyle Larose : > > I meant to suggest that, sorry. :( > > > > That said, I think a patch was submitted recently to set the mtu of > slave ports when the bond's mtu is set. > > > > http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/commit/drivers/net/bonding/ > rte_eth_bond_pmd.c?id=55b58a7374554cd1c86f4a13a0e2f54e9ba6fe4d > > > > Are you running with that patch? > > No. I wasn't aware of this patch. > I'll try it. Thanks. > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Alex Kiselev [mailto:kiselev99@gmail.com] > >> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 8:44 AM > >> To: Kyle Larose > >> Cc: users > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] xl710 NIC doesn't receive 1518 bytes packets > >> > >> 2018-01-24 17:14 GMT+03:00 Alex Kiselev : > >> > Hi Kyle. > >> > > >> > 2018-01-24 17:01 GMT+03:00 Kyle Larose : > >> >> Did you set the MTU on the bond port? It has separate configuration > IIRC. > >> > >> I don't see any special API functions for setting MTU of a bonding port > >> neither in 17.08.1 that I am currently using nor in the latest DPDK > branch. > >> > >> So, I use regular MTU setting function rte_eth_dev_set_mtu() for my bond > >> port created via command line arguments. > >> And It doesn't work. 1518 bytes packets are being filtered. > >> > >> I tried to hardcode setting MTU for each slave port and it solved the > >> problem. So, it looks like the problem is the rte_eth_dev_set_mtu() call > >> that doesn't change MTU of slave ports when it is called for a bonding > port. > >> > >> The described problem exists at least with i40e driver and doesn't show > up > >> when I use x520 NICS. > >> > >> -- > >> Alex Kiselev > > > > -- > -- > Kiselev Alexander >