From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by dpdk.space (Postfix) with ESMTP id E50D3A00E6 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:08:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65C311B95D; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:08:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com (mail-qt1-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361AD1B53B for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 13:08:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id d13so5203292qth.5 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 04:08:26 -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; bh=N55GrQAYmRQ9mRXrDMDzwBhxG0dG007hS4DK9dyipVY=; b=bBA88LaxNmPLDIMV6zjvjKef1SRQ7eTzJmgX99a3Tm3ACjXKVD6R1XJJ7ExgtwKHG7 Jw16/9Sbu/9vezV0SU7799+jceT+FtozmF2sMgNJuQBPha+/XhQmbe9svec/3pfMqA69 OcKoEszeVfy3vsIEsUV0ibeZFloPi3skNhgJdjt7ueSrJqzB5OMXrUQIl0UYHhKKEZjJ ppaC/kphlxYNpltfOQHf2eegcqW8yXKOzkQYIb8fiY5/47z1NvRfmCpaIqHzP0CEf+1l e8bL2AH93UMT30l4NWn9IaH1afpY/3tUjXF8Ktfx4E2UmXqiolq9btniNq+5DxVaZol4 Ea6A== 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; bh=N55GrQAYmRQ9mRXrDMDzwBhxG0dG007hS4DK9dyipVY=; b=lo6yWQ+Bvjq5fcb+cLubecuUJ1gzBdsc8lXyr0ZqZ2R1WgCI5KssSB2gPgAyVSd2QF VuE1PtErpaOimPW+97yrkTLPcYZpl6mWLMsHJUvhanapD++lDSl6RmO6Z9pmDGL4y0up gBPwKHWLif5Aj65EVal0M7mk7aALSM1U5nndE4QMhzjQ/4VXg6wnWRBjpQXc2tqDmMUc RA2qKyveQ2UIDu6Ge6ZLoiII5rnvSf0siJ0JyVtnbF9kkffqL3vl1QyTJBktnj0pXR3g qo5XdlQXSWBCvDKto4rjauf6ecMDcwZXL9W8JPAd19Ft0oQDomIZU83Tz8aplG1P5Ztc O0xA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUqPEUptaliaJtFRAHbVasjsZwflHsplVD6MzN5c6w51gBhH8P3 VTE4ibc2idwPrl37zJhyF19eIfiThO4idHlNVs58nA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxm4fOQwNBPj5pqHmKYJ1Lc8wfnA528wKmet+B34H0Maf4TnSuiRJ7ASLjmvL9NDHCXFLoBvQ701Dx2hhYnLsI= X-Received: by 2002:aed:22c5:: with SMTP id q5mr2883139qtc.386.1555672105255; Fri, 19 Apr 2019 04:08:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Nishant Verma Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 07:08:13 -0400 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Zero Packet with 1024 rx desc on x710 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" Just to update about the details of initial problem. When I am saying giving RX descriptor as 1024, it means descriptor ring size for Rx is 1024. Thanks. BR, Nishant On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 5:28 PM Nishant Verma wrote: > Hi All, > > I found one interesting issue with two set of NIC(X520 & X710) but don't > know the reason behind it. Please help me to explain what exactly is > happening here. > > Case 1: On x520, when I am giving the RX descriptor as 1024, it's not > receiving any packets. There is no such huge traffic just arp and ping > packets. But with 1024 as descriptor it is not accepting a single packet. > But when I changed it to 1040, it starts working fine. Can anyone please > explain what exactly happened? Total mbuf i allocated was 8192. > > Case 2: While in x710, if you use 1040 as rx descriptor, it won't let you > configure. So I change it to 1024 but here also I am not getting any packet. > > Any suggestions? > > Thanks. > > BR, > Nishant > > > > -- > Rgds, > Nishant > > > > -- Rgds, Nishant