From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34F66C433DB for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB85A619D3 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 07:38:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229832AbhCZHh4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 03:37:56 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:47168 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230026AbhCZHhq (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2021 03:37:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACA57C0613B0 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 00:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id x21-20020a17090a5315b029012c4a622e4aso1319861pjh.2 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 00:37:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zhT8sVIgNhepoeDx6NrFympH82S3SYQTGpfjTyASnHs=; b=lBKkcfgSSgjGuyyHkaVMaJOJZd5wiMSIVBab23d9WUd5MD67GUJKek7ia4T/zEOO/P F03rp0USfSP5h78VzYaETdS6ZX5vkg/rgfrWJZfNyl6TYDPzoqTydyjF1NJCKnbjdlTu PT310HbYyonFvjkq5udhKGqmpd49F63kpw6tygDoYRU+lY72zbokyJ9gUPKDt8+A6DR1 AQ4WKCtEVCfm3BlPQg2CqY/PRAAmCc4HQtLVeAvWZAcC4T3yk0OPfR6NprQ4WwDAeuT3 TYgF4TIznP+rnXg8abjBW+FomSPnZpE0CO41G/ntRO4r0l2PlZOo5WerM6rdLClVuXF+ F5lw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zhT8sVIgNhepoeDx6NrFympH82S3SYQTGpfjTyASnHs=; b=J729APKAb0cARQCcN6y9maa4TbKZKxBxO21Rd73xz7E/GrAPQINbGCMMtTSh9W1yG9 02MHtQacmMBh1xJmZ/iv7yAq3mdym8yhUCuY/VBKMChwLmTpRA8vYgSUAq1h0yLAm5ZJ gsqlzW4SiJAb6P2OAh14wjVGu7MQ2e5CViLMZO9lVOkz8GeF6d8+6QvCJAi0IL2Zdfwz GEwk2Ovhh+hlf2XWvG35WuFqlRtVRUzaKIb5GNR3NVODABSVEqpmCBtu1x14Py65OeDs OStHZXzyLN8PMipSqvxWb5NzZym0t2K5dgvVFrHKUsU0jFrIueZEiglkIPe5VGsm7Tyh MJuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531j496yY1a/mi8v6HXWEKeDXvM5SF4gd7B+mU+BzYN3sO8LgsRJ fKkIPD/C9hjy+vu3j1p9a8yFJ3O6kChSTvXFmx+mKD6jqHU2hQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvOo7fOuNLJB56RETUzXdXiRKx2/oqydbs0vLEXych51RjPf4x3rD+893PNLGH2sgBqJu5qvxeYvg4XtXyPH8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:e01:: with SMTP id ge1mr12875876pjb.117.1616744265299; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 00:37:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <35a931df0e2cb4bf1fd23ecc15895419c7ca0e3c.camel@coverfire.com> In-Reply-To: From: Magnus Karlsson Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 08:37:34 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: AF_XDP (i40e) behavior change in 5.11? To: Dan Siemon Cc: Xdp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: xdp-newbies@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 11:17 PM Dan Siemon wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 11:00 +0100, Magnus Karlsson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Dan Siemon > > wrote: > > > > > > ./xsk_fwd -i ens1f0 -q 2 -i ens1f1 -q 2 -c 5 -i ens1f0 -q 3 -i > > > ens1f1 - > > > q 3 -c 6 > > > > > > On 5.10, the cores (2,3) assigned interrupts for the queues (2,3) > > > are > > > idle when there is no traffic. > > > > > > On 5.11, the cores immediately go to 100% system time when the > > > program > > > starts (as viewed in htop). There is no network traffic. > > > > > > Intel 710/i40e. > > > > > > I tried this with xsk_fwd built from 5.10 and 5.11 trees with the > > > same > > > result. > > > > > > Is this behavior change expected? > > > > Thanks for reporting this. No, this is not intentional. I did send up > > a fix for a bug in the i40e driver that was introduced in 5.11. It > > might be the culprit. Could you please try the patch below and see if > > it works? It is not yet in net. > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg729128.htm > > Hi Magnus, > > It appears (quick testing) that the patch fixes the problem. Perfect! I will send a mail and try to get it through the internal testing as soon as possible so we can get it up on the list and merged. Thank you: Magnus > Thanks. >