From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?N=E9lio?= Laranjeiro Subject: Re: mlx5 flow create/destroy behaviour Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:34:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20170331083453.GX16796@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> <20170329094523.GG16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968F9CBF@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> <20170330130320.GR16796@autoinstall.dev.6wind.com> <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968FCD16@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)" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "Peters, Matt" To: "Legacy, Allain" , Olga Shern Return-path: Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com (mail-wr0-f179.google.com [209.85.128.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABAE2108D for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr0-f179.google.com with SMTP id l43so96596401wre.1 for ; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 01:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <70A7408C6E1BFB41B192A929744D8523968FCD16@ALA-MBC.corp.ad.wrs.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 04:53:47PM +0000, Legacy, Allain wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nélio Laranjeiro [mailto:nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:03 AM > <...> > > I found an issue on the id retrieval while receiving an high rate of the > > same flow [1]. You may face the same issue. Can you verify with the > > patch? > > > > Thanks, > > > > [1] http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/22897/ > > I had some difficulty applying that patch onto v17.02 so I took all of > the patches to the mlx5 driver that are in dpdk-next-net just to be > sure I had all other outstanding fixes. > > The behavior did not change. I still see flows that are not marked > even after a flow rule has been created to match on that particular > flow. It seems like it works in batches... 10-20 flows will work, > and then the next 10-20 flows won't work, and then the next 10-20 > flows will work. But, in all cases I have logs that show that the > flow rules were created properly for all flows, and destroyed properly > at the end of each test. It seems pretty consistent that the first > test after a NIC reset always works on all flows, but then subsequent > tests see variable results. Every so often I get another test run > that has no issues but then the failure pattern resumes on the next > attemp. + Olga Shern, Allain, Thanks for all this tests, for this last point is seems to be a firmware or hardware issue, I don't have any way to help on that case. I suggest you to contact directly Mellanox to have some support regarding this. Thanks, -- Nélio Laranjeiro 6WIND