Sent a patch: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10887/
<http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/10887/>.
> 26 ????. 2016 ?., ? 17:35, Igor Ryzhov <iryzhov at nfware.com> ???????(?):
>
> Hello, Harry.
>
> Understood about size of packets. It's a bit confusing, because in all other
> drivers undersized packet is an error. Maybe we should add another one size
> bin for virtio - 60 to 63 bytes?
>
> I already checked about multicast/broadcast counters - broadcast packets are
> counted twice:
>
> vq->multicast += is_multicast_ether_addr(ea);
> vq->broadcast += is_broadcast_ether_addr(ea);
>
> I think it should be something like:
>
> if (is_multicast_ether_addr(ea)) {
> if (is_broadcast_ether_addr(ea)) {
> vq->broadcast++;
> } else {
> vq->multicast++;
> }
> }
>
> Best regards,
> Igor
>
>> 26 ????. 2016 ?., ? 17:29, Van Haaren, Harry <harry.van.haaren at intel.com>
>> ???????(?):
>>
>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Igor Ryzhov
>>> I found some problem with virtio xstats counters.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> rx_good_packets: 3
>>> rx_good_bytes: 180
>>> rx_errors: 0
>>>
>>> rx_q0_good_packets: 3
>>> rx_q0_good_bytes: 180
>>> rx_q0_errors: 0
>>>
>>> rx_q0_multicast_packets: 3
>>> rx_q0_broadcast_packets: 1
>>> rx_q0_undersize_packets: 3
>>
>>> It means that undersize packets are counted as good packets instead of
>>> errors.
>>
>> Are you sending 64 byte packets? There are no 4 bytes of CRC on virtual
>> interfaces, so 60 bytes per packet is OK.
>>
>>> Or maybe
>>> size of packet is calculated wrong.
>>> I don't have time now to check it more deeply - I can do it sometime later,
>>> but maybe
>>> someone want to help.
>>
>> Are the packets multicast or broadcast?
>> It looks like one of the counters there is wrong.
>>
>>> PS. Is it a common practice to count broadcast packets twice - in broadcast
>>> and multicast
>>> counters?
>>
>> No packet should be counted twice - it must be put into one bucket of mutli,
>> broad or unicast.
>>
>> -Harry
>
