[dpdk-dev] using dpdk without glibc
Hi, I need to develop an application to forward packets, but it must not use GLIBC. It will not have malloc(), printf() and other functions except syscalls. What files should I copy from DPDK distribution that would allow me to manage the rings ? Is this doable or it will require rewriting all the code, and probably I should write my own light DPDK for this purpose ? Thanks in advance Nulik
[dpdk-dev] using dpdk without glibc
Hi, 23/02/2014 11:48, Nulik Nol : > I need to develop an application to forward packets, but it must not > use GLIBC. It will not have malloc(), printf() and other functions > except syscalls. What files should I copy from DPDK distribution that > would allow me to manage the rings ? Is this doable or it will require > rewriting all the code, and probably I should write my own light DPDK > for this purpose ? It seems a big challenge. I think you should be more precise describing the libraries you need. Do you need only rings ? For which PMD ? By the way, what's wrong with glibc ? -- Thomas
[dpdk-dev] What's the performance significance of ixgbe_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc
Hi, While browsing through the ixgbe pmd code, I noticed that there is ixgbe_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc, which can be enabled if the following preconditions are met. * rxq->rx_free_thresh >= RTE_PMD_IXGBE_RX_MAX_BURST * rxq->rx_free_thresh < rxq->nb_rx_desc * (rxq->nb_rx_desc % rxq->rx_free_thresh) == 0 * rxq->nb_rx_desc<(IXGBE_MAX_RING_DESC-RTE_PMD_IXGBE_RX_MAX_BURST) I presume the difference from the normal (non bulk) version has to do with buffer allocation. Can someone please explain the inner working of bulk_alloc and why one may or may not want to enable bulk_alloc mode? I only see bulk_alloc is available for ixgbe driver and not igb and e1000. Why is that? Thanks. Dan
[dpdk-dev] What's the performance significance of ixgbe_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc
If some one is interested in more of improving throughput, they will want to enable bulk_allocation. If someone wants to have lesser latency, then they may want to go for non bulk version. With 10 Gb, it is more critical to use bulk for achieving the desired throughput. -Original Message- From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kan Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:43 PM To: dev at dpdk.org Subject: [dpdk-dev] What's the performance significance of ixgbe_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc Hi, While browsing through the ixgbe pmd code, I noticed that there is ixgbe_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc, which can be enabled if the following preconditions are met. * rxq->rx_free_thresh >= RTE_PMD_IXGBE_RX_MAX_BURST * rxq->rx_free_thresh < rxq->nb_rx_desc * (rxq->nb_rx_desc % rxq->rx_free_thresh) == 0 * rxq->nb_rx_desc<(IXGBE_MAX_RING_DESC-RTE_PMD_IXGBE_RX_MAX_BURST) I presume the difference from the normal (non bulk) version has to do with buffer allocation. Can someone please explain the inner working of bulk_alloc and why one may or may not want to enable bulk_alloc mode? I only see bulk_alloc is available for ixgbe driver and not igb and e1000. Why is that? Thanks. Dan
[dpdk-dev] using dpdk without glibc
If the restriction is size based, have you looked at the smaller libc variants used in embedded world? If the restriction is a legal issue, you need to find a different lawyer... On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Nulik Nol wrote: > Hi, > I need to develop an application to forward packets, but it must not > use GLIBC. It will not have malloc(), printf() and other functions > except syscalls. What files should I copy from DPDK distribution that > would allow me to manage the rings ? Is this doable or it will require > rewriting all the code, and probably I should write my own light DPDK > for this purpose ? > > Thanks in advance > Nulik
