You are right. Given this thread updated today http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023480.html (updates from today still not there) It seems I was too quick to jump to conclusion.
Just in case, when bound to i40e, can you run ethtool -i on that interface? It should show the fw version. thanks /Arnon On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Eimear Morrissey < eimear.morrissey at ie.ibm.com> wrote: > Arnon Warshavsky <arnon at qwilt.com> wrote on 10/19/2015 03:46:22 PM: > > > From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon at qwilt.com> > > To: Eimear Morrissey/Ireland/IBM at IBMIE > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > Date: 10/19/2015 03:46 PM > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e > > > > Hi Eimear > > > > This is the link I have. > > https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24769 > > > > I guess that the version seen in the web page comes from a different > > parallel universe. > > You should see the actual fw version inside the zip file. > > > Thanks > > /Arnon > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Eimear Morrissey < > eimear.morrissey at ie.ibm.com > > > wrote: > > Arnon Warshavsky <arnon at qwilt.com> wrote on 10/19/2015 03:01:46 PM: > > > > > From: Arnon Warshavsky <arnon at qwilt.com> > > > To: Eimear Morrissey/Ireland/IBM at IBMIE > > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > > > Date: 10/19/2015 03:01 PM > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Inconsistent statistics counters for pmd_i40e > > > > > > > > Hi Eimear, > > > > > > I just experienced the same problem with firmware versions 4.23 and > > > 4.33 (dpdk 2.0). Did not get to try the latest which is 4.5. > > > Looking at the code, I don't see that this counter is being read any > > > differently than its peer counters and I suspect the nic itself. > > > Can you tell which firmware version you were using? > > > > > > thanks > > > /Arnon > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Eimear Morrissey < > > eimear.morrissey at ie.ibm.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm having issues measuring packets dropped at the NIC in both the > 2.0.0 > > > and 2.1.0 versions of DPDK on an X710 Intel NIC. > > > > > > In dpdk-2.0.0 > > > Using rte_eth_xstats the rx_packets and rx_bytes counters increase as > > > expected, however rx_missed_errors is always 0 even if a sleep > statement is > > > added between calls to rte_eth_rx_burst. However changing the coremask > so > > > the application is running on a different socket than the card will > cause > > > rx_missed_errors to increment for a limited amount of time and then > stop. > > > Using rte_eth_stats, ipackets is incremented on packet receipt but the > > > q_ipackets and q_errors arrays remain zero. Even crossing sockets > seems to > > > have no effect on q_errors. > > > > > > In dpdk-2.1.0 the behaviour is the same as above, except that the > number of > > > fields returned by rte_eth_xstats_get is reduced (no rx_missed errors > at > > > all) so running on a different socket no longer has any noticeable > effect > > > on the stats. > > > > > > My understanding from the API manual is that the rte_eth_stats q_errors > > > array should count the packets missed because software isn't polling > fast > > > enough, but that doesn't seem to be the case? Is there a standard DPDK > way > > > to check this? The application is a forwarding one so there's no other > way > > > to estimate drop except through NIC rx. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Eimear > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Arnon Warshavsky > > > Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 | > arnon at qwilt.com > > > Hi Arnon, > > > > The firmware version I'm using is 4.26. Where do you see the latest > > is 4.5 - I can't find anything obvious in the download centre? > > > > Regards, > > Eimear > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Arnon Warshavsky > > Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 | > arnon at qwilt.com > > > I tried installing the firmware but on running the NVM update tool I just > get "No updates available for your device" which makes me think that (for > my SKU at least) I'm on the latest firmware. > > Also, if I bind the card back to the i40e driver, I can force the dropped > count in ifconfig to increase by decreasing the rx ring size so I'm not > convinced it's entirely a hardware issue. > > Regards, > Eimear > > -- *Arnon Warshavsky* *Qwilt | work: +972-72-2221634 | mobile: +972-50-8583058 | arnon at qwilt.com <arnon at qwilt.com>*
