Hi!

Currently I'am running some tests with the Load Balancer Sample Application. 
I'm testing the Load Balancer Sample Application by sending packets with pktgen.
I have a setup of 2 servers with each server containing a Intel 10Gbe 82599 NIC 
(connected to each other). I have configured the Load Balancer application to 
use 1 core for RX, 1 worker core and 1 TX core. The TX core sends all packets 
back to the pktgen application.

With the pktgen I send 1024 UDP packets to the Load Balancer. Every packet 
processed by the worker core will be printed to the screen (I added this code 
by myself). If I send 1024 UDP packets, 1008 ( = 7 x 144) packets will be 
printed to the screen. This is  correct, because the RX core reads packets with 
a burst size of 144. So if I send 1024 packets, I expect 1008 packets back in 
the pktgen application. But surprisingly I only receive 224 packets instead of 
1008 packets. After some research I found that that  224 packets is not just a 
random number, its 7 x 32 (= 224). So if the RX reads 7 x 144 packets, I get 
back 7 x 32 packets. After digging into the code from the Load Balancer 
application I found in 'runtime.c' in the 'app_lcore_io_tx' function this code :

n_pkts = rte_eth_tx_burst(
                                port,
                                0,
                                lp->tx.mbuf_out[port].array,
                                (uint16_t) n_mbufs);

...

if (unlikely(n_pkts < n_mbufs)) {
                                uint32_t k;
                                for (k = n_pkts; k < n_mbufs; k ++) {
                                        struct rte_mbuf *pkt_to_free = 
lp->tx.mbuf_out[port].array[k];
                                        rte_pktmbuf_free(pkt_to_free);
                                }
                        }

What I understand from this code is that n_mbufs 'packets' are send with 
'rte_eth_tx_burst' function. This function returns n_pkts, the number of 
packets that are actually send. If the actual number of packets send is smaller 
then n_mbufs (packets ready for  send given to the rte_eth_tx_burst) then all 
remaining packets, which are not send, are freed. In de the Load Balancer 
application, n_mbufs is equal to 144. But in my case 'rte_eth_tx_burst' returns 
the value 32, and not 144. So 32 packets are actually send  and the remaining 
packets (144 - 32 = 112) are freed. This is the reason why I get 224 (7 x 32) 
packets back instead of 1008 (= 7 x 144).

But the question is: why are the remaining packets freed instead of trying to 
send them again? If I look into the 'pktgen.c', there is a function 
'_send_burst_fast' where all remaining packets are trying to be send again (in 
a while loop until they are all  send) instead of freeing them (see code below) 
:

static __inline__ void
_send_burst_fast(port_info_t *info, uint16_t qid)
{
        struct mbuf_table   *mtab = &info->q[qid].tx_mbufs;
        struct rte_mbuf **pkts;
        uint32_t ret, cnt;

        cnt = mtab->len;
        mtab->len = 0;

        pkts    = mtab->m_table;

        if (rte_atomic32_read(&info->port_flags) & PROCESS_TX_TAP_PKTS) {
                while (cnt > 0) {
                        ret = rte_eth_tx_burst(info->pid, qid, pkts, cnt);

                        pktgen_do_tx_tap(info, pkts, ret);

                        pkts += ret;
                        cnt -= ret;
                }
        } else {
                while(cnt > 0) {
                        ret = rte_eth_tx_burst(info->pid, qid, pkts, cnt);

                        pkts += ret;
                        cnt -= ret;
                }
        }
} 

Why is this while loop (sending packets until they have all been send) not 
implemented in the 'app_lcore_io_tx' function in the Load Balancer application? 
That would make sense right? It looks like that the Load Balancer application 
makes an assumption that  if not all packets have been send, the remaining 
packets failed during the sending proces and should be freed.

I hope someone can help me with this questions. Thank you in advance!!

Peter

Reply via email to