From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Subject: Re: URGENT please help. Issue on ixgbe_tx_free_bufs
 version 2.0.0
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:33:17 +0000
Message-ID: <20151117103316.GA22264@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <CADoa0ba7mCHHzwr2wAWS-__2fVSROQPcqDtuT3x=Jd29tBp8DQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151110105417.GD29836@bricha3-MOBL3>
 <CADoa0bbQ-Ed8vNvY9zn_AySJUh1hWWQ8k_O+iEf9Jk-qNfKvWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADoa0bY4grd74Gn6fxN+T_U9tr5yZax-WoGivtGrLa-hJEuVNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Ariel Rodriguez <arodriguez@callistech.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CEA358D4
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:33:59 +0100 (CET)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADoa0bY4grd74Gn6fxN+T_U9tr5yZax-WoGivtGrLa-hJEuVNQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 07:58:27PM -0300, Ariel Rodriguez wrote:
> Hi Bruce, im going to list the results after the test=B4s.
>=20
> I will start with the second hint you proposed:
>=20
> 2) I upgrade our custom dpdk application with the latest dpdk code (2.1=
.0)
> and the issue still there.
>=20
> 1) I test the load balancer app with the latest dpdk code (2.1.0) with =
the nic
> 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ with tapped traffic and the results are:
>=20
>    a) Work fine after 6 hours of running. (For timing issues i cant wai=
t
> longer but the issue always happend before 5 hours of running so i supp=
osed
> we are fine in this test).
>=20
>    b) I made a change to load balancer code to behave as our dpdk
> application in the workers code. This change is just for giving  the
> workers code enough load (load in terms of core frecuency) that made th=
e rx
> core drop several packet because ring between workers and rx core is fu=
ll.
> (Our application drop several packets because the workers code are not =
fast
> enough).
>=20
>        In the last test, the segmentation fault arise , just in the sam=
e
> line that i previously report.
>=20
What is the workload you are putting into the worker core? Can you provid=
e a
diff for the load balancer app that reproduces this issue, since from you=
r
description the problem may be in the extra code added in.

/Bruce