[dpdk-dev] i40e mbuf->rss indication

Ferruh Yigit ferruh.yigit at intel.com
Thu Mar 22 13:18:16 CET 2018


On 3/22/2018 11:46 AM, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) wrote:
> Driver: i40e
> 
> DPDK : 17.11
> 
> Configuration : 
> 
> 1)     RSS configuration 
>        rxmode.mq_mode = ETH_MQ_RX_RSS;
>        rss->rss_hf = ETH_RSS_UDP | ETH_RSS_TCP;
>        rss->rss_key = Microsoft key 
>        rss->rss_key_len = 52
> 
>        *configure RETA to some rx-queues
> 
> 2)        Change hash to TOEPLITZ (only for i40e)
> 
>           struct rte_eth_hash_filter_info info = {};
>           info.info_type = RTE_ETH_HASH_FILTER_GLOBAL_CONFIG;
>           info.info.global_conf.hash_func = RTE_ETH_HASH_FUNCTION_TOEPLITZ;
>           rte_eth_dev_filter_ctrl(m_repid, 
>                                   RTE_ETH_FILTER_HASH,
>                                   RTE_ETH_FILTER_SET, &info);
> 
> 3) Configure some flow-director rules 
> 
> 4) TCP/UDP packets are received to the *right* core (based on a SW Toeplitz calculation +reta table) however
>    The reported rss value is *wrong* in the mbuf 
>   (m->hash.rss == *wrong value*)

Are you getting same result with both scalar and vector driver?

>   ((m->ol_flags&PKT_RX_RSS_HASH) == PKT_RX_RSS_HASH
> 
> 5) The above works fine for mlx5 and ixgbe
> 
> 6) I suspect the hash is something else, maybe flow-director id or xor hash ..
> 
> Wanted to know if this is a known issue. I can provide a simple way to reproduce it using TRex 
> 
> Thanks,
> Hanoh
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson at intel.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 1:35 PM
> To: Hanoch Haim (hhaim)
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] i40e mbuf->rss indication
> 
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 06:47:22PM +0000, Hanoch Haim (hhaim) wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> DPDK:17.11
>> When i40e is configured with RSS enabled and hash.type=toeplitz
>>
>> m->hash.rss = some weird number
>> ((m->ol_flags&PKT_RX_RSS_HASH) == PKT_RX_RSS_HASH
>>
>> The hash value is correct and match the MS Toeplitz standard.
>>
>> Is this expected?
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow the question, or the problem. Are you meaning to say that the hash value is incorrect, or that the flag is not being set or something else?
> 
> /Bruce
> 
>>
>> The above works fine with ixgbe/mlx5
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hanoh
>>



More information about the dev mailing list