From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B8AA2EDB for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:52:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1700E29C6; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f66.google.com (mail-ua1-f66.google.com [209.85.222.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09658DE3 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 07:52:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f66.google.com with SMTP id u31so3764963uah.0 for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:52:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OrEq0ZsaAUVNf0hLlMxj/t5ujbzwLFdiyXGgSakqJLU=; b=kOXNwViz/kCa2sizlUZTAhiJoMZ3BpOiFOZB+ad+A/qvY7NZzoMUkR8Hi7Db2IMzXm B6e+i5Dt+ybm18AgU64ZROSb52f8YJ+j91xSl0ytlodfiJ4/xutR5R+EC0W04QMCAsME lYTySYXVxazaBQYyQnZTcd3uKvdmhl5ZDcmDSEm3KscO6QWsz+G30EFbH+aX4oc+lIFg TCi2v7yNfUygfkHXr8Xo0x9rabNvo9M74D3cdIl2NRas92f4OJCxZxusdUUiOpeh5mmd Q8wmJiVdd0iJv1r28MsJKktU0HiDWcSvUgkFyZ3nrLV+WPkFjLjQDfP37CHSy5EkeeCV yu5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OrEq0ZsaAUVNf0hLlMxj/t5ujbzwLFdiyXGgSakqJLU=; b=l50JQ52pQyDeTRUpABw9CgxBcH0sKIF733+QE+39ZFwrNfuli80lRCTzEG8BHn4lhR kWSHtt0PJ72cvMxjH3TVikxY2862REAcS2ZOqJKjGw6Bvu8tr+jsKnGOcPFsCQ2u8AG2 yZ1tCLTDmfyuTp7mnpGFSH0gYPLoXJgbsdPOBqPQkhUFtzpLDq+dYcEgIbMmXTYdCxtO z5fyt+wxcObu/G7ro2klj59CtXvwCwYoZ6FZ8YWg/Y326ylZcSI/evF40jtZ9fWAgeuF j+xBj4AVsvnsaNt/7MMfUIFC/QUg1KAY7UDXFrFVUtD2K/qnY4kkD1gmTlkC3ZV42KzF Xn5g== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXthIXlVQCk7FE5RSwtDnq+6EIlC5mJ9/WJyKoELUhiKvzxzBRg jkQ0XqTO4/0DB72GHl4SJP2umYc7PsMJgthxURCjNNTC X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqywUJDQgjZvIaHaOsqfDQ17gJDuZf1HqxnrzairowoAfGTeanVBttRXzRtBVfsdfNQrpSvcRISnffQQHoEaqu8= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5514:: with SMTP id t20mr10717914uaa.35.1569822751178; Sun, 29 Sep 2019 22:52:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190925221637.11fb9632@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: From: Gaurav Bansal Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 11:22:19 +0530 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] packet drops with missing rxdIdx count in vmxnet3 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: , Errors-To: users-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "users" hi all, havn't heard back on this so far. Can anyone please let me know of the possible reasons for the NIC to skip some of the indexes of the descriptor ring in the Rx path (as also shown by the vmxnet3 logs in my previous mail) ? thanks, gaurav On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:17 PM Gaurav Bansal wrote: > hi all, > Tried to debug this further and found that there is a skip in the rxdIdx > count as seen in the logs below. And 'rxdIdx' index is incremented by the > NIC itself. Any ideas on why the 'rxdIdx' count (say 5 as seen below) may > be missing ? Any suggestions to try to find the root cause of missing rx > index ? > > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): rxd idx: 0 ring idx: 0. > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): rxd idx: 1 ring idx: 0. > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): rxd idx: 2 ring idx: 0. > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): rxd idx: 3 ring idx: 0. > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): *rxd idx: 4* ring idx: 0. > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): *rxd idx: 6* ring idx: 0. > PMD: vmxnet3_recv_pkts(): rxd idx: 7 ring idx: 0. > > thanks, > gaurav > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:25 PM Gaurav Bansal wrote: > >> Thanks Stephen for the reply. I am planning to try that but that will >> require some major changes & lot more time, as this library is tightly >> integrated with our code base. Meanwhile please let me know if there is >> anything that can be tried on 16.04 itself. >> thanks, >> gaurav >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:46 AM Stephen Hemminger < >> stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 10:45:03 +0530 >>> Gaurav Bansal wrote: >>> >>> > any suggestions here ? >>> > >>> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 4:09 PM Gaurav Bansal >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Hi all, >>> > > I am using dpdk 16.04 library to process the packets on a vmware vm >>> (say >>> > > vm1). The traffic is sent through a client machine using apache >>> bench. I am >>> > > observing an issue when the number of packets reaching the vmxnet3 >>> > > interface reaches the descriptor ring size (set to 2048). Till 2048 >>> all the >>> > > packets correctly reach the 'vmxnet3_recv_pkts' function. >>> > > >>> > > But as the number of packets received reaches 2048, i start seeing >>> some >>> > > retransmissions on the client side (as shown by tcpdump on client >>> side). >>> > > Then i captured the packets on the esx host destined to vm1 and it >>> shows >>> > > that all the original packets as well as the corresponding >>> retransmissions >>> > > are reaching vm1. But somehow these packets fail to reach till >>> > > 'vmxnet3_recv_pkts' function (this was found by putting the >>> breakpoint in >>> > > 'vmxnet3_recv_pkts' function and dumping the packet contents, which >>> showed >>> > > that some packets don't reach here). >>> > > >>> > > Now 'vmxnet3_recv_pkts' is the first function which reads the >>> packets from >>> > > the descriptor ring and as the packets are not reaching till here, i >>> am not >>> > > sure on how to debug this further. Possibly some issues related to >>> the ring >>> > > initialization.... I enabled the init & RX logs for vmxnet3, but i >>> don't >>> > > see any error logs as well. I also tried looking at rxq stats and it >>> shows >>> > > 0 all the time : >>> > > (gdb) p rxq->stats >>> > > $1 = {drop_total = 0, drop_err = 0, drop_fcs = 0, >>> rx_buf_alloc_failure = 0} >>> > > >>> > > Can anyone please provide some clues on how to debug this further ? >>> Are >>> > > there any known issues related to this which have been fixed post >>> 16.04 >>> > > version ? >>> > > thanks, >>> > > gaurav >>> > > >>> >>> Try a newer version of DPDK first. >>> >>