Hi Ernesto,
Good that you've managed to make a difference. However, this is hardly an ideal
solution performance-wise, as the plain Rx function does not utilise vector
extensions. It is peculiar that the AVX2 version shows this strange behaviour.
For the bug report, one may want to use https://bugs.dpdk.org/ -> 'New'.
Apart from that, there is a very recent fix [1] that is supposed to be applied
on top of the current main branch of 'dpdk-next-net'. May be it is worth trying
without the "if 0" Rx function workaround, just to confirm that indeed the issue
has something to do with the Rx function and not with device register settings.
Thank you.
[1] https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=35700
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025, Ernesto Ruffini wrote:
Hi Ivan,
It worked!
ICE_INIT: ice_set_rx_function(): Rx Burst Bulk Alloc Preconditions are
satisfied. Rx Burst Bulk Alloc function will be used on port 0.
And all the flags are there, with both one and four queues.
Any idea on where to report this as a bug in the AVX2 OFFLOAD Vector Rx
driver function, as apparently it is?
Thank you
Ernesto
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@arknetworks.am>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 18:12
To: Ernesto Ruffini <eruff...@outsys.org>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: E810 VLAN offload wrong behavior
Hi Ernesto,
That's interesting. To be honest, I'm not an expert in this driver. So far
it does not seem the issue is with the specific Rx function, yet may be it
pays to temporarily change "#ifdef RTE_ARCH_X86" to "#if 0" on line [1] in
the original source of 24.11.2 and rebuild? Just to make sure the Rx method
is a don't care.
Thank you.
[1]
https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/4c5634de9f933555bab9c64a533d3dca999071cd/d
rivers/net/ice/ice_rxtx.c#L3489
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025, Ernesto Ruffini wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thank you for your quick answer.
I tried to apply the patch but got a compilation error:
../drivers/net/ice/ice_ethdev.c:5003:71: error: dereferencing pointer
to incomplete type ?const struct ci_rx_queue?
qrx_context_offset = QRX_CONTEXT(ICE_L2TSEL_QRX_CONTEXT_REG_IDX,
rxq->reg_idx);
So I did "git clone git://dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-net" and from there
it compiled.
Unfortunately it got consistent, but worse:
The selected rx function is the same:
ICE_DRIVER: ice_set_rx_function(): Using AVX2 OFFLOAD Vector Rx (port 0).
But it now drops the VLAN, without signaling it, in all cases.
With 1 queue:
ol_flags: RTE_MBUF_F_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD With 4 queues:
ol_flags: RTE_MBUF_F_RX_RSS_HASH RTE_MBUF_F_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD RTE_MBUF_F_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
I double checked with plain 24.11.2 and indeed with just one queue it
is still
ol_flags: RTE_MBUF_F_RX_VLAN RTE_MBUF_F_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD RTE_MBUF_F_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
So I'm confident the lab environment is still good
Thank you
Ernesto
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@arknetworks.am>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 14:49
To: Ernesto Ruffini <eruff...@outsys.org>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: E810 VLAN offload wrong behavior
Hi Ernesto,
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025, Ernesto Ruffini wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Thanks for the hint.
I ran testpmd with the suggested parameter, but I cannot find where
the function gets selected.
I attach the full log here.
Thanks. The message to look for appears closer to the end of start
sequence:
ICE_DRIVER: ice_set_rx_function(): Using AVX2 OFFLOAD Vector Rx (port 0).
But before investigating the code of that Rx function, perhaps it pays
to make sure patch [1] is applied. Everything is so recent that most
likely it has not landed 24.11 release yet. Theoretically, the bug the
patch is trying to fix has something to do with multi-queue and VLAN
stripping. See if you can't apply the patch in 24.11 or rebuild from
the current main of dpdk-next-net repository.
Thank you.
[1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2025-June/320530.html
Thanks
Ernesto
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Malov <ivan.ma...@arknetworks.am>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 02:04
To: Ernesto Ruffini <eruff...@outsys.org>
Cc: users@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: E810 VLAN offload wrong behavior
Hi Ernesto,
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Ernesto Ruffini wrote:
Hi,
We found a strange behavior of the E810 VLAN offload.
We are running DPDK 24.11.2 with ice driver 1.15.4, firmware 4.60
and COMMS DDP 1.3.46
The NIC receives an IPv4/UDP packet inside VLAN 300.
If we run dpdk-testpmd with a single queue, everything seems fine:
dpdk-testpmd -a 0000:4b:00.0 -c ffffff -n 8 -- -i
set verbose 5
port stop 0
port config 0 rx_offload vlan_strip on
port start 0
start
And the packet is correctly displayed:
src=08:02:03:04:05:06 - dst=00:1A:CA:01:00:96 - pool=mb_pool_0 -
type=0x0800 - length=142 - nb_segs=1 - VLAN tci=0x12c - hw ptype:
L2_ETHER L3_IPV4_EXT_UNKNOWN L4_UDP - sw ptype:
L2_ETHER L3_IPV4 L4_UDP - l2_len=14 - l3_len=20 - l4_len=8 -
Destination UDP port=5398 - Receive queue=0x0
ol_flags: RTE_MBUF_F_RX_VLAN RTE_MBUF_F_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD RTE_MBUF_F_RX_VLAN_STRIPPED
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
But if we use a different number of queues:
dpdk-testpmd -a 0000:4b:00.0 -c ffffff -n 8 -- -i --rxq=4 --txq=4
It would be helpful to enable debug logs with EAL argument
--log-level='.*',8 so that one can see which 'rx_pkt_burst' method
gets selected by the driver.
Then one can inspect the implementation of that particular function
to see whether offloads are handled correctly.
Thank you.
The VLAN is in fact removed, but there is no evidence of that:
src=08:02:03:04:05:06 - dst=00:1A:CA:01:00:96 - pool=mb_pool_0 -
type=0x0800 - length=142 - nb_segs=1 - RSS hash=0xfae3080 - RSS
queue=0x0 - hw ptype: L2_ETHER L3_IPV4_EXT_UNKNOWN L4_UDP - sw ptype:
L2_ETHER L3_IPV4 L4_UDP - l2_len=14 - l3_len=20 - l4_len=8 -
Destination UDP port=5398 - Receive queue=0x0
ol_flags: RTE_MBUF_F_RX_RSS_HASH RTE_MBUF_F_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD RTE_MBUF_F_RX_OUTER_L4_CKSUM_GOOD
There was a bug in some previous versions of DPDK about E810 and
VLAN
offload, but it was fixed.
Are we doing something wrong or is there a problem with the driver?
Thank you
Ernesto
