From: bugzilla@dpdk.org
To: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: [DPDK/ethdev Bug 1947] bnxt: rte_eth_stats_get returns invalid counter values on BCM57608
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 18:52:18 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-1947-3@http.bugs.dpdk.org/> (raw)
http://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1947
Bug ID: 1947
Summary: bnxt: rte_eth_stats_get returns invalid counter values
on BCM57608
Product: DPDK
Version: 26.03
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: Normal
Component: ethdev
Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
Reporter: oleksandrn@interfacemasters.com
Target Milestone: ---
On BCM57608 rte_eth_stats_get occasionally returns a single statistic counter
with a value that doesn't make sense given the actual traffic sent. Only one
counter is bad per call; I have never seen two simultaneously, which maybe
suggests some sort of timing issue, and I don't think I even saw like 2 ports
of 6 have bad values, always one port one counter. (but maybe I need to do more
runs to see this, so maybe it doesn't mean anything)
Observed 2 cases:
1. A counter returns an exact power of 2 that is far beyond what the traffic
could produce in a short timeframe. For example, after 60 seconds of 6×100 Gbps
traffic, we observe ierrors = 70368744177664 = 2^46 or 140737488355328 =
2^47 on single port.
2. ipackets is much larger than ibytes, which doesn't make sense, and should
be impossible.
Example for case 1:
ipackets 1423589410
opackets 1423588386
ibytes 1452060153720
obytes 1469240022904
imissed 229789201
ierrors 70368744177664 <<<<< 2^46
oerrors 0
rx_nombuf 0
Additionally, rte_eth_stats_reset / rte_eth_xstats_reset do not prevent
recurrence.
There is also a suspected issue with stats reset itself: running a second
60-second traffic burst after reset shows more packets reported by the NIC than
the traffic generator actually sent, suggesting the hardware counters are not
actually cleared, but I haven't investigated this enough to give more details.
Rough reproduction steps (we did this testing with our application, but
haven't seen anything similar for other NICs we use, so it shouldn't matter
much):
1. Initialize port with BCM57608 NIC (we have 10rx queues per port)
2. Optionally call rte_eth_stats_reset after port init
3. Send 6×100 Gbps traffic for 60 seconds (1024bytes per packet in this case,
but I don't think it should matter)
4. Call rte_eth_stats_get -> observe inconsistent values sometimes
Seems to be the same with 25.11 and 26.03
NIC :
Part Number : BCM957608-P2100GQF20
Chip Number : BCM57608
Chip Name : THOR2
Firmware Version : 236.1.153.0
RoCE Firmware Version : 236.1.153.0
HWRM Interface Spec : 1.10.3
Active Package Version : 236.1.155.0
Package Version on NVM : 236.1.155.0
Active NVM config version : 236.0.2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
reply other threads:[~2026-05-18 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-1947-3@http.bugs.dpdk.org/ \
--to=bugzilla@dpdk.org \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox