> On 26 Apr 2018, at 15:34, Amir Kaduri <akadur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Alfredo, > > My code is based on libpcap, while pfring's userland examples use pfring APIs > directly, therefore things are a bit harder for me. > > Short clarification about a related code-line: > Please look at the following line: > https://github.com/ntop/PF_RING/blob/dev/userland/libpcap-1.8.1/pcap-linux.c#L1875 > > <https://github.com/ntop/PF_RING/blob/dev/userland/libpcap-1.8.1/pcap-linux.c#L1875> > > (1) If I understand it correctly, if wait_for_incoming_packet is true, then > pfring_poll() should be called. > Don't you want wait_for_incoming_packet to be true in case > pf_ring_active_poll is true?
“active” means spinning, thus poll should not be used in that case. > Currently, its the opposite (i.e. if pf_ring_active_poll is true, > wait_for_incoming_packet will be false thus pfring_poll() won't be called). This seems to be correct > > (2) If the code is ok, then the only way for me to make > wait_for_incoming_packet true (for pfring_poll() to be called) is by making > handlep->timeout >= 0. > Correct? Correct Alfredo > > Thanks, > Amir > > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Alfredo Cardigliano <cardigli...@ntop.org > <mailto:cardigli...@ntop.org>> wrote: > Hi Amir > if I understand correctly, pfcount_multichannel is working, while in your > application > it seems that poll does not honor the timeout, if this is the case it seems > the problem > is not in the kernel module, I think you should look for differences between > the two applications.. > > Alfredo > >> On 9 Apr 2018, at 07:20, Amir Kaduri <akadur...@gmail.com >> <mailto:akadur...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Alfredo, >> >> I'm back to investigate/debug this issue in my environment, and maybe you'll >> manage to save me some time: >> >> When I use the example program "pfcount_multichannel", poll-duration works >> for me as expected: >> For watermark=128, poll-duration=1000, even if less than 128 packets >> received, I get them in pfcount_multichannel. >> >> On the other hand, in my other program (which is a complex one), the >> userspace application gets the packets only after 128 packets >> aggregated by the ring, regardless the polling rate (which is done always >> using 50ms timeout). >> >> Maybe you can figure out what can "hold" the packets in the ring and forward >> them to userspace only when the watermark threshold passes? >> Maybe something is missing during initialization? >> (for simplicity I'm not using rehash, and not using any filters). >> >> Thanks >> >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano <cardigli...@ntop.org >> <mailto:cardigli...@ntop.org>> wrote: >> Hi Amir >> that's correct, however for some reason it seems it is not the case in your >> tests. >> >> Alfredo >> >> On 31 Oct 2017, at 12:08, Amir Kaduri <akadur...@gmail.com >> <mailto:akadur...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> Thanks. tot_insert apparently works ok. >>> >>> Regarding function copy_data_to_ring(): >>> At the end of it there is the statement: >>> if(num_queued_pkts(pfr) >= pfr->poll_num_pkts_watermark) >>> wake_up_interruptible(&pfr->ring_slots_waitqueue); >>> >>> Since watermark is set to 128, and I send <128 packets, this causes them to >>> wait in kernel queue. >>> But since poll_duration is set to 1 (1 millisecond I assume), I expect the >>> condition to check this also (meaning, there are packets in queue but 1 >>> millisecond passed and they weren't read), >>> the wake_up_interruptible should also be called. No? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Amir >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Alfredo Cardigliano <cardigli...@ntop.org >>> <mailto:cardigli...@ntop.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 31 Oct 2017, at 08:42, Amir Kaduri <akadur...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:akadur...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alfredo, >>>> >>>> I'm trying to debug the issue, and I have a question about the code, to >>>> make sure that there is no problem there: >>>> Specifically, I'm referring to the function "pfring_mod_recv": >>>> In order that the line that refers to poll_duration ("pfring_poll(ring, >>>> ring->poll_duration)") will be reached, there are 2 conditions that should >>>> occur: >>>> 1. pfring_there_is_pkt_available(ring) should return false (otherwise, the >>>> function returns at the end of the condition). >>>> 2. wait_for_incoming_packet should be set to true. >>>> Currently, I'm referring to the first one: >>>> In order that the macro pfring_there_is_pkt_available(ring) will return >>>> false, ring->slots_info->tot_insert should be equal to >>>> ring->slots_info->tot_read. >>>> What I see in my tests that they don't get equal. I always see that >>>> tot_insert>tot_read, and sometimes they get eual when tot_read++ is called >>>> but it happens inside the condition, so the "pfring_mod_recv" returns with >>>> 1. >>> >>> It seems to be correct. The kernel module inserts packets into the ring >>> increasing tot_insert, the userspace library reads packets from the ring >>> increasing tot_read. This means that if tot_insert == tot_read there is no >>> packet to read. If there is a bug, it should be in the kernel module that >>> is somehow not adding packets to the ring (thus not updating tot_insert). >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>>> I remind that I set the watermark to be high, in order to see the >>>> poll_duration takes effect. >>>> >>>> Could you please approve that you don't see any problem in the code? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Amir >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Alfredo Cardigliano >>>> <cardigli...@ntop.org <mailto:cardigli...@ntop.org>> wrote: >>>> Hi Amir >>>> yes, that’s the way it should work, if this is not the case, some >>>> debugging is needed to identify the problem >>>> >>>> Alfredo >>>> >>>>> On 26 Oct 2017, at 10:14, Amir Kaduri <akadur...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:akadur...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Basically, the functionality that I would like to have is even if less >>>>> than poll-watermark-threshold (default: 128) packets arrives the socket, >>>>> they will be forwarded to userland if 1 millisecond has passed. >>>>> How can I gain this? Isn't it by using pfring_set_poll_duration()? >>>>> >>>>> Alfredo, could you please clarify? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Amir >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Amir Kaduri <akadur...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:akadur...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm using pf_ring 6.6.0 (no ZC) on CentOS 7, on 10G interfaces (ixgbe >>>>> drivers). >>>>> As far as I understand the relation between poll-watermark and >>>>> poll-duration, packets will be queued untill one of comes first: or >>>>> passing the poll-watermark packets threshold, or a poll-duration >>>>> milliseconds has passed. >>>>> I set poll-watermark to the maximum (4096) (using >>>>> pfring_set_poll_watermark()) and set poll-duration to the minimum (1) >>>>> (using pfring_set_poll_duration()). >>>>> I've sent 400 packets to the socket. I see that they are received by the >>>>> NIC, but they didn't pass to userland. Only when passing 500 packets, a >>>>> chunk of them passed to userland. >>>>> I don't quite understand the behavior: since poll-duration is 1 >>>>> (millisecond I assume), I've expected all the packets to pass to userland >>>>> immediately, even though poll-watermark is much higher. >>>>> >>>>> Can anyone shed some light on the above? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Amir >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ntop-misc mailing list >>>>> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >>>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >>>>> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ntop-misc mailing list >>>> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >>>> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ntop-misc mailing list >>>> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >>>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >>>> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ntop-misc mailing list >>> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >>> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ntop-misc mailing list >>> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >>> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >>> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ntop-misc mailing list >> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ntop-misc mailing list >> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> >> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc >> <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> > > _______________________________________________ > Ntop-misc mailing list > Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it <mailto:Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it> > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc > <http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc> > > _______________________________________________ > Ntop-misc mailing list > Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Ntop-misc mailing list Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
