Hi Pablo, On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:36:38PM +0000, De Lara Guarch, Pablo wrote: > Hi Nelio, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of N?lio Laranjeiro > > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 3:24 PM > > To: Wang, Zhihong > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Ananyev, Konstantin; Richardson, Bruce; De Lara Guarch, > > Pablo; thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/5] testpmd: handle all rxqs in rss setup > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 07:08:05PM -0400, Zhihong Wang wrote: > > > This patch removes constraints in rxq handling when multiqueue is enabled > > > to handle all the rxqs. > > > > > > Current testpmd forces a dedicated core for each rxq, some rxqs may be > > > ignored when core number is less than rxq number, and that causes > > confusion > > > and inconvenience. > > > > > > One example: One Red Hat engineer was doing multiqueue test, there're 2 > > > ports in guest each with 4 queues, and testpmd was used as the forwarding > > > engine in guest, as usual he used 1 core for forwarding, as a results he > > > only saw traffic from port 0 queue 0 to port 1 queue 0, then a lot of > > > emails and quite some time are spent to root cause it, and of course it's > > > caused by this unreasonable testpmd behavior. > > > > > > Moreover, even if we understand this behavior, if we want to test the > > > above case, we still need 8 cores for a single guest to poll all the > > > rxqs, obviously this is too expensive. > > > > > > We met quite a lot cases like this, one recent example: > > > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-June/072110.html > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhihong Wang <zhihong.wang at intel.com> > > > --- > > > app/test-pmd/config.c | 8 +------- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c > > > index ede7c78..4719a08 100644 > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c > > > @@ -1199,19 +1199,13 @@ rss_fwd_config_setup(void) > > > cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_ports = nb_fwd_ports; > > > cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams = > > > (streamid_t) (nb_q * cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_ports); > > > - if (cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams > cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_lcores) > > > - cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams = > > > - (streamid_t)cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_lcores; > > > - else > > > - cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_lcores = > > > - (lcoreid_t)cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams; > > > > > > /* reinitialize forwarding streams */ > > > init_fwd_streams(); > > > > > > setup_fwd_config_of_each_lcore(&cur_fwd_config); > > > rxp = 0; rxq = 0; > > > - for (lc_id = 0; lc_id < cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_lcores; lc_id++) { > > > + for (lc_id = 0; lc_id < cur_fwd_config.nb_fwd_streams; lc_id++) { > > > struct fwd_stream *fs; > > > > > > fs = fwd_streams[lc_id]; > > > -- > > > 2.5.0 > > > > Hi Zhihong, > > > > It seems this commits introduce a bug in pkt_burst_transmit(), this only > > occurs when the number of cores present in the coremask is greater than > > the number of queues i.e. coremask=0xffe --txq=4 --rxq=4. > > > > Port 0 Link Up - speed 40000 Mbps - full-duplex > > Port 1 Link Up - speed 40000 Mbps - full-duplex > > Done > > testpmd> start tx_first > > io packet forwarding - CRC stripping disabled - packets/burst=64 > > nb forwarding cores=10 - nb forwarding ports=2 > > RX queues=4 - RX desc=256 - RX free threshold=0 > > RX threshold registers: pthresh=0 hthresh=0 wthresh=0 > > TX queues=4 - TX desc=256 - TX free threshold=0 > > TX threshold registers: pthresh=0 hthresh=0 wthresh=0 > > TX RS bit threshold=0 - TXQ flags=0x0 > > Segmentation fault (core dumped) > > > > > > If I start testpmd with a coremask with at most as many cores as queues, > > everything works well (i.e. coremask=0xff0, or 0xf00). > > > > Are you able to reproduce the same issue? > > Note: It only occurs on dpdk/master branch (commit f2bb7ae1d204). > > Thanks for reporting this. I was able to reproduce this issue and > sent a patch that should fix it. Could you verify it? > http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/14430/
I have tested it, it works, I will add a test report on the corresponding email. Thanks > > > Thanks > Pablo > > > > Regards, -- N?lio Laranjeiro 6WIND
