[dpdk-users] VF RSS availble in I350-T2?
..
hyperhead at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 13:58:32 CET 2017
I assume my message was ignored due to it not being related to dpdk
software?
On 11 December 2017 at 10:14, .. <hyperhead at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an intel I350-T2 which I use for SR-IOV, however, I am hitting some
> rx_dropped on the card when I start increasing traffic. (I have got more
> with the same software out of a identical bare metal system)
>
> I am using the Intel igb driver on Centos 7.2 (downloaded from Intel not
> the driver installed with Centos), so the RSS parameters amongst others are
> availbe to me
>
> This then led me to investigate the interrupts on the tx rx ring buffers
> and I noticed that the interface (vfs enabled) only had on tx/rx queue. Its
> distributed between This is on the KVM Host
>
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4
> CPU5 CPU6 CPU7 CPU8
> 100: 1 33 137 0 0
> 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI-edge ens2f1
> 101: 2224 0 0 6309 178807
> 0 0 0 0 IR-PCI-MSI-edge ens2f1-TxRx-0
>
> Looking at my standard nic ethernet ports I see 1 rx and 4 rx queues
>
> On the VM I only get one tx one rx queue ( I know all the interrupts are
> only using CPU0) but that is defined in our builds.
>
> egrep "CPU|ens11" /proc/interrupts
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3 CPU4
> CPU5 CPU6 CPU7
> 34: 715885552 0 0 0 0
> 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge ens11-tx-0
> 35: 559402399 0 0 0 0
> 0 0 0 0 PCI-MSI-edge ens11-rx-0
>
> I activated RSS in my card, and can set if, however if I use the param
> max_vfs=n then it defaults back to to 1 rx 1 tx queue per nic port
>
> [ 392.833410] igb 0000:07:00.0: Using MSI-X interrupts. 1 rx queue(s), 1
> tx queue(s)
> [ 393.035408] igb 0000:07:00.1: Using MSI-X interrupts. 1 rx queue(s), 1
> tx queue(s)
>
> I have been reading some of the dpdk older posts and see that VF RSS is
> implemented in some cards, does anybody know if its available in this card
> (from reading it only seemed the 10GB cards)
>
> One of my plans aside from trying to create more RSS per VM is to add more
> CPUS to the VM that are not isolated so that the rx and tx queues can
> distribute their load a bit to see if this helps.
>
> Also is it worth investigating the VMDq options, however I understand this
> to be less useful than SR-IOV which works well for me with KVM.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Rolando
>
More information about the users
mailing list