From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: mlx5 flow create/destroy behaviour
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:45:23 +0200
Message-ID: <20170329094523.GG16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com>
References: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F8E2F@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
 <20170328153602.GC16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com>
 <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F92EF@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "Adrien Mazarguil (adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com)"
 <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
 "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters@windriver.com>
To: "Legacy, Allain" <Allain.Legacy@windriver.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f176.google.com (mail-wr0-f176.google.com
 [209.85.128.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7E71D28A
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:45:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wr0-f176.google.com with SMTP id l43so7027339wre.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 02:45:31 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F92EF@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <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>

I Allain,

Please see below

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 04:16:08PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nélio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:36 AM
> <..> 
> > If I understand correctly, your application is adding 500 rules like:
> > 
> >  flow create 0 ingress pattern eth src is <smac> dst is <dmac> / vlan vid is
> > <vid> / end action mark id is <id> / queue index 0 / end
> >
> 
> 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?

> > > Once the flows are setup, the application then checks that ingress
> > > packets are properly marked with the intended unique integer specified
> > > in the MARK action.
> > 
> > It is sending packets to verify this?
> 
> The traffic generator continues to send packets during the test.
> Once all flow rules have been created the application expects further
> ingress packets will be marked with the unique ID.
>  
> > > When I run this test after the NIC has been reset there are no issues.
> > 
> > What do you mean by "reset"?
> 
> The DPDK test application is quit and restarted therefore the NIC is
> re-probed, configured, started, etc.   Seems like this is cleaning up
> whatever problem is resident in the NIC that is causing the new flow
> rules to not work properly. 
> 
>  
> > In mlx5 PMD rte_flow_destroy() always returns success as the destruction
> > should never fail.
> > 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.

Thanks,

[1] http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-March/058722.html

-- 
Nélio Laranjeiro
6WIND