Is there someone investigating the issue? I think it should be simple to fix for someone mastering these Intel drivers.
2016-03-25 01:02, Xu, Qian Q: > Marc > #Test1 is just a simple test. Just launch testpmd with these nic port. > ./testpmd ?c 0x3 ?n 4 -- -i > > Thanks > Qian > > From: marc.sune at gmail.com [mailto:marc.sune at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marc > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 3:48 PM > To: Xu, Qian Q > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin; > Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API > refactoring > > > > On 24 March 2016 at 07:21, Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu at > intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu at intel.com>> wrote: > Marc > I didn?t quite get your points, I observed that after applying this patchset, > all intel nic can?t be started, maybe something wrong happened when you check > the duplex/autoneg value for different NICs. If we want to merge the patchset > in RC2, we need fix them. Maybe not an easy job in several days. > > Is this test#1 one of the tests contained in the DPDK repository or is it an > internal test? > > Marc > > > > Thanks > Qian > > From: marc.sune at gmail.com<mailto:marc.sune at gmail.com> [mailto:marc.sune > at gmail.com<mailto:marc.sune at gmail.com>] On Behalf Of Marc > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:54 AM > To: Xu, Qian Q > Cc: Thomas Monjalon; Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin; > Richardson, Bruce; dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API > refactoring > > Qian, > > On 23 March 2016 at 02:18, Xu, Qian Q <qian.q.xu at > intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu at intel.com>> wrote: > We have tested with intel nic and found port can't be started for all > nics:ixgbe/i40e/igb/bonding, see attached mail for more details. Please check > and fix it. > > > Thanks > Qian > > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org>] On > Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:59 AM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin > Cc: marcdevel at gmail.com<mailto:marcdevel at gmail.com>; Richardson, Bruce; > dev at dpdk.org<mailto:dev at dpdk.org> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API > refactoring > > 2016-03-17 19:08, Thomas Monjalon: > > There are still too few tests and reviews, especially for > > autonegotiation with Intel devices (patch #6). > > I would not be surprised to see some bugs in this rework. > > Any feedback about autoneg in e1000/ixgbe/i40e? > Has it been tested before its integration in RC2? > > > The capabilities must be adapted per device. It can be improved in a > > separate patch. > > > > It will be integrated in 16.04-rc2. > > Please test and review shortly, thanks! > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Xu, Qian Q" <qian.q.xu at intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu at intel.com>> > To: "Cao, Waterman" <waterman.cao at intel.com<mailto:waterman.cao at > intel.com>>, "Glynn, Michael J" <michael.j.glynn at > intel.com<mailto:michael.j.glynn at intel.com>> > Cc: "Richardson, Bruce" <bruce.richardson at > intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson at intel.com>>, "Zhu, Heqing" <heqing.zhu > at intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu at intel.com>>, "O'Driscoll, Tim" > <tim.odriscoll at intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll at intel.com>>, "Mcnamara, > John" <john.mcnamara at intel.com<mailto:john.mcnamara at intel.com>>, "Xu, > HuilongX" <huilongx.xu at intel.com<mailto:huilongx.xu at intel.com>>, "Fu, > JingguoX" <jingguox.fu at intel.com<mailto:jingguox.fu at intel.com>>, "Xu, > Qian Q" <qian.q.xu at intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu at intel.com>>, "Zhang, > Helin" <helin.zhang at intel.com<mailto:helin.zhang at intel.com>> > Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:41:37 +0000 > Subject: RE: DPDK link speed with Intel devices > Hi, all > We have worked out the basic test cases for the patchset. > 1. Test the link speed on major Intel NICs to see if the speed is right. > 2. Test the auto-negoation on major Intel NICs to ensure it's working. > Nic covered: ixgbe, igb, i40e, fm10k, bonding(SW), virtio(SW) > > When we run the Test#1 for all major NICs. We found that all these NIC > port(igb, ixgbe, i40e, fm10k) can't be started. Pls check, if the patch is > applied, all INTEL port can't be start, terrible things! > > Interactive-mode selected > Configuring Port 0 (socket 0) > PMD: ixgbe_dev_tx_queue_setup(): sw_ring=0x7f13e99e3440 > hw_ring=0x7f13e99e5480 dma_addr=0x8299e5480 > PMD: ixgbe_set_tx_function(): Using simple tx code path > PMD: ixgbe_set_tx_function(): Vector tx enabled. > PMD: ixgbe_dev_rx_queue_setup(): sw_ring=0x7f13ffcb8080 > sw_sc_ring=0x7f13ffcbaac0 hw_ring=0x7f13e99d3380 dma_addr=0x8299d3380 > PMD: ixgbe_dev_start(): Invalid link_speeds for port 0; autonegotiation > disabled > Fail to start port 0 > Configuring Port 1 (socket 0) > PMD: i40e_set_tx_function_flag(): Vector tx can be enabled on this txq. > PMD: i40e_dev_rx_queue_setup(): Rx Burst Bulk Alloc Preconditions are > satisfied. Rx Burst Bulk Alloc function will be used on port=1, queue=0. > PMD: i40e_dev_start(): Invalid link_speeds for port 1; autonegotiation > disabled > > > Just to double-check; is the test#1 adapted to the _new_ API that ethdev has > to set link speeds? For the output it seems autoneg is disabled => fixed > speed, hence the new bitmaps have to be used. > > (I am not claiming patchset is bug free; there might be issues still) > > Regards > marc > > Fail to start port 1 > Please stop the ports first > Done > > Thanks > Qian > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cao, Waterman > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:06 AM > To: Glynn, Michael J > Cc: Richardson, Bruce; Zhu, Heqing; O'Driscoll, Tim; Mcnamara, John; Xu, Qian > Q; Cao, Waterman > Subject: RE: DPDK link speed with Intel devices > > Hi Mike, > > We just knew this patch set last week. > Since this patch set is required to test with a lot of NIC, we need > more document from Dev about this patch. > Currently, Qian is working on with Wenzhuo on it now. > > Waterman > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Glynn, Michael J > Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:31 AM > To: Cao, Waterman <waterman.cao at intel.com<mailto:waterman.cao at > intel.com>> > Cc: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson > at intel.com>>; Zhu, Heqing <heqing.zhu at intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu at > intel.com>>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll > at intel.com>>; Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at > intel.com<mailto:john.mcnamara at intel.com>> > Subject: FW: DPDK link speed with Intel devices > Importance: High > > Hi Waterman, all > > See below - are you aware? And if so where are we with testing/resolution? > > Regards > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at > 6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>] > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 2:19 PM > To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll at > intel.com>>; Glynn, Michael J <michael.j.glynn at > intel.com<mailto:michael.j.glynn at intel.com>>; Zhu, Heqing <heqing.zhu at > intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu at intel.com>> > Cc: vincent.jardin at 6wind.com<mailto:vincent.jardin at 6wind.com> > Subject: DPDK link speed with Intel devices > > Hi, > > We are still waiting for test feedbacks for this important patchset: > ethdev: 100G and link speed API refactoring It is possible that it > breaks the autonegotiation in e1000/ixgbe/i40e. > > Thanks for taking care. > >
