On 25 March 2016 at 21:41, Marc [off-list ref] wrote:

On 25 March 2016 at 16:07, Zhang, Helin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Thomas

Beilei is investigating that, she will give her findings soon later, and
possibly a fix after validating that.
Thanks!

I will try to reproduce this on my side too with the latest v12. I could
not try latest patchsets, but i40 (XL710) and igb (82540EM) were working on
my side for previous versions. Which exact NICs were used to test the
patchset for igb?

I am able to reproduce it straight away by applying v12. The problem is
testpmd and in general existing applications have the default value of 0 as
link_speeds for autoneg.

From v9 to v10 patchset the values ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG and

ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED were flipped. Reverting this makes it work:

marc@Beluga:~/personal/dpdk/tools$ git diff

diff --git a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
index ef2502a..fb247a7 100644
--- a/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h
+++ b/lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h

@@ -244,8 +244,8 @@ struct rte_eth_stats {
 /**
  * Device supported speeds bitmap flags
  */
-#define ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED    (0 <<  0)  /**< Disable autoneg (fixed

speed) */
-#define ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG  (1 <<  0)  /**< Autonegotiate (all speeds)
*/
+#define ETH_LINK_SPEED_AUTONEG  (0 <<  0)  /**< Autonegotiate (all speeds)
*/
+#define ETH_LINK_SPEED_FIXED    (1 <<  0)  /**< Disable autoneg (fixed
speed) */
 #define ETH_LINK_SPEED_10M_HD   (1 <<  1)  /**<  10 Mbps half-duplex */
 #define ETH_LINK_SPEED_10M      (1 <<  2)  /**<  10 Mbps full-duplex */
 #define ETH_LINK_SPEED_100M_HD  (1 <<  3)  /**< 100 Mbps half-duplex */

I think having autoneg == 0 is better. Do you agree Thomas?

With this change my current NIC (I218-LM) is able to initialize:

Option: 27

  Enter hex bitmask of cores to execute testpmd app on
  Example: to execute app on cores 0 to 7, enter 0xff
bitmask: 0x3
Launching app
EAL: Detected lcore 0 as core 0 on socket 0
EAL: Detected lcore 1 as core 0 on socket 0
EAL: Detected lcore 2 as core 1 on socket 0
EAL: Detected lcore 3 as core 1 on socket 0
EAL: Support maximum 128 logical core(s) by configuration.
EAL: Detected 4 lcore(s)
EAL: Probing VFIO support...
EAL: Module /sys/module/vfio_pci not found! error 2 (No such file or
directory)
EAL: VFIO modules not loaded, skipping VFIO support...
EAL: Setting up physically contiguous memory...
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x26800000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33ef800000 (size = 0x26800000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x6e00000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33e8800000 (size = 0x6e00000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x800000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33e7e00000 (size = 0x800000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x4400000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33e3800000 (size = 0x4400000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0xe00000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33e2800000 (size = 0xe00000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x600000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33e2000000 (size = 0x600000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x200000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f33e1c00000 (size = 0x200000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x43600000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f339e400000 (size = 0x43600000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x8e00000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f3395400000 (size = 0x8e00000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x200000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f3395000000 (size = 0x200000)
EAL: Ask a virtual area of 0x200000 bytes
EAL: Virtual area found at 0x7f3394c00000 (size = 0x200000)
EAL: Requesting 1024 pages of size 2MB from socket 0
EAL: TSC frequency is ~2593996 KHz
EAL: Master lcore 0 is ready (tid=180078c0;cpuset=[0])
EAL: lcore 1 is ready (tid=94bff700;cpuset=[1])
EAL: PCI device 0000:00:19.0 on NUMA socket -1
EAL:   probe driver: 8086:15a2 rte_em_pmd
EAL:   PCI memory mapped at 0x7f3416000000
EAL:   PCI memory mapped at 0x7f3416020000
PMD: eth_em_dev_init(): port_id 0 vendorID=0x8086 deviceID=0x15a2
Interactive-mode selected
Configuring Port 0 (socket 0)
PMD: eth_em_tx_queue_setup(): sw_ring=0x7f33e210efc0 hw_ring=0x7f33e21110c0
dma_addr=0x745110c0
PMD: eth_em_rx_queue_setup(): sw_ring=0x7f33e20fea80 hw_ring=0x7f33e20fef80
dma_addr=0x744fef80
PMD: eth_em_start(): <<

I am troubleshooting link status reporting, which seems not correct with
l2fwd. I will also double check that fixed speed and autoneg with subset of
speeds work.

@Thomas: once I've fixed this shall I submit v13 or should we wait for more
feedback from the rest of untested NICs? This patchset needs to be tested
by all drivers, at least.

marc

Marc

quoted

Regards,
Helin

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 5:36 PM
To: Xu, Qian Q <redacted>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Marc <redacted>; Ananyev, Konstantin
[off-list ref]; Lu, Wenzhuo [off-list ref];
Zhang, Helin [off-list ref]; Richardson, Bruce
[off-list ref]; Glynn, Michael J <

michael.j.glynn@intel.com>

quoted

Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed API
refactoring

Is there someone investigating the issue?
I think it should be simple to fix for someone mastering these Intel

drivers.

quoted

2016-03-25 01:02, Xu, Qian Q:

quoted

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@gmail.com [mailto:marc.sune@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@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@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>> wrote:

quoted

Marc
I didn’t quite get your points, I observed that after applying this

patchset, all

quoted

intel nic can’t be started, maybe something wrong happened when you

check

quoted

the duplex/autoneg value for different NICs. If we want to merge the

patchset in

quoted

RC2, we need fix them. Maybe not an easy job in several days.

quoted

Is this test#1 one of the tests contained in the DPDK repository or

is it an

quoted

internal test?

quoted

Marc



Thanks
Qian

From: marc.sune@gmail.com<mailto:marc.sune@gmail.com>
[mailto:marc.sune@gmail.com<mailto:marc.sune@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@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@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@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>> wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

and fix it.

quoted

Thanks
Qian

-----Original Message-----
From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>]
On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:59 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin; Lu, Wenzhuo; Zhang, Helin
Cc: marcdevel@gmail.com<mailto:marcdevel@gmail.com>; Richardson,
Bruce; dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v11 0/8] ethdev: 100G and link speed
API refactoring

2016-03-17 19:08, Thomas Monjalon:

quoted

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?

quoted

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@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>>
To: "Cao, Waterman"
<waterman.cao@intel.com<mailto:waterman.cao@intel.com>>, "Glynn,
Michael J"
<michael.j.glynn@intel.com<mailto:michael.j.glynn@intel.com>>
Cc: "Richardson, Bruce"
<bruce.richardson@intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com>>,

"Zhu,

quoted

quoted

Heqing" <heqing.zhu@intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu@intel.com>>,
"O'Driscoll, Tim"
<tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>, "Mcnamara,
John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com<mailto:john.mcnamara@intel.com>>, "Xu,
HuilongX" <huilongx.xu@intel.com<mailto:huilongx.xu@intel.com>>, "Fu,
JingguoX" <jingguox.fu@intel.com<mailto:jingguox.fu@intel.com>>, "Xu,
Qian Q" <qian.q.xu@intel.com<mailto:qian.q.xu@intel.com>>, "Zhang,
Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com<mailto:helin.zhang@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.

quoted

quoted

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,

quoted

ixgbe, i40e, fm10k) can't be started. Pls check, if the patch is

applied, all INTEL

quoted

port can't be start, terrible things!

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

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

quoted

to set link speeds? For the output it seems autoneg is disabled =>

fixed speed,

quoted

hence the new bitmaps have to be used.

quoted

(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

quoted

more document from Dev about this patch.

quoted

        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@intel.com<mailto:waterman.cao@intel.com>>
Cc: Richardson, Bruce
<bruce.richardson@intel.com<mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com>>; Zhu,
Heqing <heqing.zhu@intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu@intel.com>>;
O'Driscoll, Tim
<tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>; Mcnamara,
John <john.mcnamara@intel.com<mailto:john.mcnamara@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?

quoted

quoted

Regards
Mike



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Monjalon

[mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com<mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

quoted

Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 2:19 PM
To: O'Driscoll, Tim
<tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>; Glynn,
Michael J
<michael.j.glynn@intel.com<mailto:michael.j.glynn@intel.com>>; Zhu,
Heqing <heqing.zhu@intel.com<mailto:heqing.zhu@intel.com>>
Cc: vincent.jardin@6wind.com<mailto:vincent.jardin@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

quoted

breaks the autonegotiation in e1000/ixgbe/i40e.

quoted

Thanks for taking care.