From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510095598 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:24:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id d136so3663547qkg.3 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:24:47 -0700 (PDT) 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=RQFgoiDclebvcoUbGbD0WqXYVY5mK+u4vr7pPQSrYXU=; b=tsb5BHryHGfueTrZVXZDXpcNVdI15Ny4WtNmvAnBi+qiIkja4AKCWzPs1JJtHb80Is mlQ09S4cQaM7cRjOemx7jiivpakB/kCxyZpJbrj1E6yX0qeSyFmNVemDLF2+2yB/N805 to5+zNLDJR4oBYCpL7yQKdnKpYGWxzsWU+/Rwh5G59/OyiVsLt3p3rI4vGfGmG+/Rquy XsJV9DULbcJhM8mL7JG9pXU0H1HBhXL1Jvgza+PlCTGD9LXRCKrXIVbZlvfLi0WrLVcw dBvh06cc5GfRjmAnp3otUSU8TFGLiyW6hXE86Uc1SNJQZtS8eNe5tUQi2yGQBvr8AONx 0yNA== 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=RQFgoiDclebvcoUbGbD0WqXYVY5mK+u4vr7pPQSrYXU=; b=ngoHcjBiHxOEwG8V/e+xMAlAgLeM6IppLWBY+QHWYM3RyhRVWZfc3kJjoIKlr+M2P4 RD0y/8ah1DGIbKsl4Cj027oEkUcL+E9Tjd63O9v2MA3/1fYDmHacibqH76EsvnMFCa3/ agCJ22Cs8ZP6mGd88ayMBxpqZJA/TQ+lMP4aBeYzY5nAh8KFIlrP30KPim2tZTQnDAQs pbNRODRVO3qiZge3KuHAnhfniXYLiaaX9/2IIQLr32h4+FtOcaUfuY9ttboh3tffLvHq bVUZj5nKdFaLWxnZs3WaKTjtwaJ9dzPSdxJf+FalrcWGm4/bz0lLI3FeFnGcC9hcS8nA OKHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112K9m0SRD2n24GLqqEfTlt4ixzFaKFNYG91r1TCJVnVQacBJiTR lV7WU4w8aG4JUNCMv14aLcQyz2efHg== X-Received: by 10.55.156.134 with SMTP id f128mr16474qke.184.1500333886839; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:24:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.237.61.51 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Jul 2017 16:24:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Harold Demure Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 01:24:46 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pavel Shirshov Cc: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Strange packet loss with multi-frame payloads 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: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 23:24:47 -0000 Hello again, I tried to convert my statically defined buffers into buffers allocated through rte_malloc (as discussed in the previous email, see quoted text). Unfortunately, the problem is still there :( Regards, Harold > > 2. How do you know you have the packet loss? > > > *I know it because some fragmented packets never get reassembled fully. If > I print the packets seen by the server I see something like "PCKT_ID 10 > FRAG 250, PCKT_ID 10 FRAG 252". And FRAG 251 is never printed.* > > *Actually, something strange that happens sometimes is that a core > receives fragments of two packets and, say, receives frag 1 of packet X, > frag 2 of packet Y, frag 3 of packet X, frag 4 of packet Y.* > *Or that, after "losing" a fragment for packet X, I only see printed > fragments with EVEN frag_id for that packet X. At least for a while.* > > *This led me also to consider a bug in my implementation (I don't > experience this problem if I run with a SINGLE client thread). However, > with smaller payloads, even fragmented, everything runs smoothly.* > *If you have any suggestions for tests to run to spot a possible bug in my > implementation, It'd be more than welcome!* > > *MORE ON THIS: the buffers in which I store the packets taken from RX are > statically defined arrays, like struct rte_mbuf* temp_mbuf[SIZE]. SIZE > can be pretty high (say, 10K entries), and there are 3 of those arrays per > core. Can it be that, somehow, they mess up the memory layout (e.g., they > intersect)?* >