[dpdk-dev] mlx5 flow create/destroy behaviour
Nélio Laranjeiro
nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com
Thu Mar 30 15:03:20 CEST 2017
Hi Allain,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:29:59PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nélio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro at 6wind.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 5:45 AM
>
> <...>
> > > Almost... the only difference is that the ETH pattern also checks for
> > type=0x8100
> >
> > Ethernet type was not supported in DPDK 17.02, it was submitted later in
> > march [1]. Did you embed the patch in your test?
>
> No, but I am using the default eth mask (rte_flow_item_eth_mask) so it
> looks like it is accepting any ether type even though I set the vlan
> type along with the src+dst.
Right,
> > > > Can you compile in debug mode (by setting
> > > > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_DEBUG to "y")? Then you should have as
> > many
> > > > print for the creation rules than the destroyed ones.
> > >
> > > I can give that a try.
>
> I ran with debug logs enabled and there are no logs coming from the
> PMD that indicate an error. All create and destroy calls report a
> successful result.
>
> I modified my test slightly yesterday to try to determine what is
> happening. What I found that if I use a smaller number of flows the
> problem does not happen, but as soon as I use 256 flows or greater the
> problem manifests itself. What I mean is:
>
> test 1:
> 1) start 16 flows (16 unique src MAC addresses sending to 16 unique dst MAC addresses)
> 2) create flow rules
> 3) check that all subsequent packets are marked correctly
> 4) stop traffic
> 5) destroy all flow rules
> 6) wait 15 seconds
> 7) repeat from (1) for 4 iterations.
>
> test 2:
> same as test1 but with 32 flows
>
> test 3:
> same as test1 but with 64 flows
>
> test 4:
> same as test1 but with 128 flows
>
> test 5:
> same as test1 but with 256 flows (this is where the problem starts
> happening)... it could very well be somewhere closer to 128 but I
> am stepping up by powers of 2 so this is the first occurrence.
>
> I also modified my test to destroy flow rules in the opposite order
> that I created them just in case ordering is an issue but that had no
> effect.
I found an issue on the id retrieval while receiving an high rate of the
same flow [1]. You may face the same issue. Can you verify with the
patch?
Thanks,
[1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/22897/
--
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND
More information about the dev
mailing list