Dear Antonio,
I have not met your problem during the implementation of siitperf,
because I always had to send the frames at a given frame rate, that is,
I used the appropriate timing.
Could you check, how early the failure begins? I mean that does already
the second or third call fail? Or it happens only after a few hundred
calls?
IMHO, the latter is natural, and it means that you have exhausted some
resources.
Best regards,
Gábor
7/6/2022 9:21 AM keltezéssel, Antonio Di Bacco írta:
I wonder why calling eth_dev_tx_burst in a tight loop doesn't allow to
write the packets into the transmit buffer. Only solution I found is
to include a small delay after the tx_burst that is less than the
estimated serialization time of the packet in order to be able to
saturate the ethernet line.
Anyway I wonder if this is the right approach.
Thx,
Antonio.
On Sun, Jul 3, 2022 at 10:19 PM Gábor LENCSE <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Antonio,
According to my experience, the rte_eth_tx_burst() function reports the
packets as "sent" (by a non-zero return value), when they are still in
the transmit buffer.
(If you are interested in the details, you can see them in Section 3.6.5
of this paper: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/e104-b_2_128.pdf )
Therefore, I think that the return value of 0 may mean that
rte_eth_tx_burst() can't even commit itself for the future delivery of
the packets. I could only guess why. E.g. all its resources have been
exhausted.
Best regards,
Gábor
7/3/2022 5:57 PM keltezéssel, Antonio Di Bacco írta:
I'm trying to send packets continuously in a tight loop with a burst
size of 8 and packets are 9600 bytes long.
If I don't insert a delay after the rte_eth_tx_burst it always returns 0.
What's the explanation of this behaviour ?
Best regards,
Antonio.
