Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SUME SIMULATION fails after a given number of table entries #50

Open
harshgondaliya opened this issue Aug 29, 2020 · 0 comments
Open

SUME SIMULATION fails after a given number of table entries #50

harshgondaliya opened this issue Aug 29, 2020 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@harshgondaliya
Copy link

When I run SUME simulations ./tools/scripts/nf_test.py sim --major switch --minor default, I get the following error:

Reconciliation of nf_interface_1_log.axi with nf_interface_1_expected.axi
FAIL (1 packets expected, 0 packets received)

Reconciliation of nf_interface_0_log.axi with nf_interface_0_expected.axi
PASS (0 packets expected, 0 packets received)

Reconciliation of nf_interface_2_log.axi with nf_interface_2_expected.axi
PASS (0 packets expected, 0 packets received)

Reconciliation of dma_0_log.axi with dma_0_expected.axi
PASS (0 packets expected, 0 packets received)

Reconciliation of nf_interface_3_log.axi with nf_interface_3_expected.axi
PASS (0 packets expected, 0 packets received)

Makefile:120: recipe for target 'sim' failed

vivado.bash simulation check passes all test cases, but I get an error at the SUME SIMULATION stage.

I noticed that this failure occurs in all my P4 programs when I reach a given number of table entries in commands.txt file.
For example, for a program with the following two match-action tables, I am only able to have 5 entries per table.
If I add a single more entry then the above error comes up.

action ipv4_forward(bit<48> dstAddr, bit<8> port) {..........}

table X {
key = { sume_metadata.src_port: ternary;
p.ip.srcAddr: ternary; }
actions = { NoAction; drop; }
size = 64;
default_action = drop; }

table Y {
key = { p.ip.dstAddr: ternary; }
actions = { ipv4_forward; drop; }
size = 64;
default_action = drop; }

Shall I infer from this that NetFPGA SUME won't be able to support more table entries?
Please guide me in this regard.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants