From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ariel Rodriguez Subject: Problem after hours of running rte_eth_rx_burst Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:25:53 -0300 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 To: "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14B28E86 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 23:25:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by ykba4 with SMTP id a4so41511925ykb.3 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:25:54 -0800 (PST) List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" After several hours (6 hour average) of running a dpdk application , rte_eth_rx_burst suddenly fills only one mbuf with no data, thats is an mbuf with mbuf->pool == NULL && m->buf_physaddr == 0 && m->buf_addr == NULL. Obviosly that breaks our application. (rte_mbuf_sanity_check abort the program) How can we track the source of this kind of mis- behavoir? We are using dpdk 1.6.0r2 and we also use the qos framework api. The nic is 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ with tapped traffic. The use case is simply, our client is using a traffic tap to divert a copy of around 10gbps of traffic to our appliance. We use a rxtx code similar to the load_balancer example. We read in a pair of rx queue and the use a hash function over the source ip field to deliver the packet in a worker core. Then , when the worker core finishes to process that packet and it is delivery to the tx core. The tx core enqueue the packet to the qos framework, and just a few lines code later dequeue several packet from the qos scheduler. Because we are using a tap to divert a copy of the traffic , we disable the tx code to the phisycal nic, so when we dequeue packets from the qos scheduler wi just drop all of that packets. Of course there is a reason why we use the qos scheduler code without physically transmiting a packet, and is because we just want a few stats about the qos framework behaviour. Any ideas?