Good to hear you are making progress. I haven’t seen this problem in my
test systems but I’m mainly using netmap and dpdk without virtual interfaces
to access NIC queues directly skipping the kernel altogether.

-Matias


> On 20 Feb 2017, at 16:48, Oriol Arcas <or...@starflownetworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Small update: currently, we are having issues without ODP, just using the
> netmap example bridges. For kernel 4.1 it exhibits errors, for 4.9 it
> doesn't. We are trying to find a minimal working kernel.
> 
> So our current hypothesis is that there is some kind of bug that appears
> under concurrent transactions at kernel level, triggered by socket mmap or
> netmap... I don't know if this matches your experience.
> 
> --
> Oriol Arcas
> Software Engineer
> Starflow Networks
> 
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> version from .travis file.
>> 
>> On 20 February 2017 at 13:05, Oriol Arcas <or...@starflownetworks.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for your feedback Matias and Maxim, we really appreciate it.
>>> 
>>> We are trying netmap, but sometimes it doesn't solve the problem. Could
>>> you share what versions (ODP, netmap, Linux) are you using and are working
>>> fine? This would help us having a control group for our tests...
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Oriol Arcas
>>> Software Engineer
>>> Starflow Networks
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 02/17/17 18:45, Oriol Arcas wrote:
>>>>> I tried setting the MAC addresses. In my local test, the problem
>>>>> disappeared, but I doubt that it's been fixed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On our larger testbed, with OpenVPN tunnels, the bug persists event
>>>> with
>>>>> the MAC addresses. But our setup may be problematic, for instance in
>>>> this
>>>>> interface chain:
>>>>> 
>>>>> veth0 -|- veth1 <---> l2fwd <---> veth2 -|- veth3
>>>>> 
>>>>> we set the addresses from the endpoints (veth0, veth3), while l2fwd is
>>>>> attached to middle interfaces (veth1, veth2).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Do you think this is interfering with the network stack? It looks like
>>>> a
>>>>> serious bug in the kernel, then...
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems that we'll have to try netmap.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> that is environment which we use in 'make check' testing. Even for dpdk
>>>> or netmap. You can take exact steps from .travis.yml file. But it always
>>>> run in our CI. Maybe you have some issues related to promisc mode
>>>> and you get some additional files? Or might be packet mmap fanout
>>>> problems. But that is very strange because we would see this issue
>>>> before because that env bring up at each test run.
>>>> 
>>>> Maxim.
>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Oriol Arcas
>>>>> Software Engineer
>>>>> Starflow Networks
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Elo, Matias (Nokia - FI/Espoo) <
>>>>> matias....@nokia-bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17 Feb 2017, at 14:03, Oriol Arcas <or...@starflownetworks.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply Marias.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I tried a simpler setup and the bug persists. With a linux bridge it
>>>>>> works fine.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My setup is the following:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> | nginx <---> veth0 -|- veth1 <---> l2fwd <---> veth2 -|- veth3 <--->
>>>>>> wget |
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> where the | delimiters mean a network namespace.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I have tried it with ODP_PKTIO_DISABLE_SOCKET_MMAP, all the different
>>>>>> scheduling modes and -c 1.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Our next test would be using DPDK or netmap, if they can be used with
>>>>>> veth interfaces.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At least netmap should work with virtual interfaces.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> More things to try with odp_l2fwd arguments:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Set the MAC addresses correctly. Using the same MAC from multiple
>>>>>> interfaces
>>>>>> could potentially cause some issues with the host network stack.
>>>>>>        For example: odp_l2fwd -i if1,if2 -d 1 -s 1 -r
>>>> <if1_mac,if2_mac2>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Use direct pktio mode: -m 0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Matias
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to