[dpdk-users] rte_eth_link_get() issue for bonded interface

[dpdk-users] rte_eth_link_get() issue for bonded interface

[Cody Doucette]

Hello,

I've been experimenting with the bonding features of DPDK. If you take the
bond sample application and add a call to rte_eth_link_get() after you
start the bonded interface, it indicates the link is down, even though
there were no errors in creating the bonded interface, adding slaves, and
starting it.

Looking at the bonding driver, it seems that bond_ethdev_link_update() is
setting the link status to down because the number of active slaves is 0.
This could be because the active slave count only seems to be incremented
if a slave is added *after* the bonded device is started.

So is there a bug in the bond sample application or in the bonding driver?
Or is this expected behavior?

Thanks for any info!
Cody

Re: [dpdk-users] rte_eth_link_get() issue for bonded interface

[Cody Doucette]

I've resolved this, so in case anyone sees this problem in the future: it
is expected behavior to an extent. It can take a couple of seconds for
slaves to be activated, so when checking whether a bonded link is up, try
wrapping it in a loop to repeatedly check until the slaves have been
activated. They are polled every 10 milliseconds, but in my experience it
takes a couple of seconds for the bonded link to be recognized as up.

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Cody Doucette <doucette@bu.edu> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've been experimenting with the bonding features of DPDK. If you take the
> bond sample application and add a call to rte_eth_link_get() after you
> start the bonded interface, it indicates the link is down, even though
> there were no errors in creating the bonded interface, adding slaves, and
> starting it.
>
> Looking at the bonding driver, it seems that bond_ethdev_link_update() is
> setting the link status to down because the number of active slaves is 0.
> This could be because the active slave count only seems to be incremented
> if a slave is added *after* the bonded device is started.
>
> So is there a bug in the bond sample application or in the bonding driver?
> Or is this expected behavior?
>
> Thanks for any info!
> Cody
>