[dpdk-dev] L2/3 Tx generator example
Hello, I've become a member. I want to ask the following: I'm looking for Layer2/3 Tx generator (not forward) example. Thanks, Ilan
[dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function
Hello, I'm trying to configure the flow director of VF 82599 port using rte_eth_dev_fdir_add_signature_filter (). The function returns with ENOTSUP. Doe's flow director supported for VF ? What can be the reason for ENOTSUP ? Thanks, Ilan B
[dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function
Hi, Is there any other way except of the Flow director to use the different Rx queues by a VF ? Will the next versions support flow director for VF ? Thanks, Ilan B -Original Message- From: Wu, Jingjing [mailto:jingjing...@intel.com] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:51 AM To: Ilan Borenshtein; dev at dpdk.org Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function Hi Flow director is not supported on VF now. I think this may be the reason why ENOTSUP is returned. > -Original Message- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ilan Borenshtein > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:34 PM > To: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function > > Hello, > > I'm trying to configure the flow director of VF 82599 port using > rte_eth_dev_fdir_add_signature_filter (). > The function returns with ENOTSUP. > Doe's flow director supported for VF ? > What can be the reason for ENOTSUP ? > > Thanks, > Ilan B
[dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function
Looking for director packet to different queues in a VF. Will it be implemented in future releases ? -Original Message- From: Wu, Jingjing [mailto:jingjing...@intel.com] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:40 AM To: Ilan Borenshtein; dev at dpdk.org Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function Could you explain what exactly you want? Director packet to a VF? Or director packet to different queue in a VF? For the first one, I think if you know which queue the VF is using, the flow director can do it (it's my understanding, haven't try). But for the latter, I have no idea which way can be used instead. > -Original Message- > From: Ilan Borenshtein [mailto:ilan at asocstech.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 PM > To: Wu, Jingjing; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function > > Hi, > > Is there any other way except of the Flow director to use the different Rx > queues by a VF ? > Will the next versions support flow director for VF ? > > Thanks, > Ilan B > > > -Original Message- > From: Wu, Jingjing [mailto:jingjing.wu at intel.com] > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:51 AM > To: Ilan Borenshtein; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function > > Hi > > Flow director is not supported on VF now. > I think this may be the reason why ENOTSUP is returned. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ilan > > Borenshtein > > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:34 PM > > To: dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm trying to configure the flow director of VF 82599 port using > > rte_eth_dev_fdir_add_signature_filter (). > > The function returns with ENOTSUP. > > Doe's flow director supported for VF ? > > What can be the reason for ENOTSUP ? > > > > Thanks, > > Ilan B
[dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function
Yes, 82599. I'll be updated. Thank you for your answer. -Original Message- From: Wu, Jingjing [mailto:jingjing...@intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:41 AM To: Ilan Borenshtein; dev at dpdk.org Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function Are you talking about 82599? I have no plan to support this currently. But I don't know there may be volunteers who is planning for it. I guess it also be great if you are eager to contribute to it. > -Original Message- > From: Ilan Borenshtein [mailto:ilan at asocstech.com] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:17 PM > To: Wu, Jingjing; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function > > Looking for director packet to different queues in a VF. > Will it be implemented in future releases ? > > -Original Message- > From: Wu, Jingjing [mailto:jingjing.wu at intel.com] > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 3:40 AM > To: Ilan Borenshtein; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function > > Could you explain what exactly you want? Director packet to a VF? Or > director packet to different queue in a VF? > > For the first one, I think if you know which queue the VF is using, > the flow director can do it (it's my understanding, haven't try). > But for the latter, I have no idea which way can be used instead. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ilan Borenshtein [mailto:ilan at asocstech.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 3:34 PM > > To: Wu, Jingjing; dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function > > > > Hi, > > > > Is there any other way except of the Flow director to use the different Rx > > queues by a VF ? > > Will the next versions support flow director for VF ? > > > > Thanks, > > Ilan B > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Wu, Jingjing [mailto:jingjing.wu at intel.com] > > Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 10:51 AM > > To: Ilan Borenshtein; dev at dpdk.org > > Subject: RE: Signature filter for virtual function > > > > Hi > > > > Flow director is not supported on VF now. > > I think this may be the reason why ENOTSUP is returned. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ilan > > > Borenshtein > > > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 8:34 PM > > > To: dev at dpdk.org > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Signature filter for virtual function > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm trying to configure the flow director of VF 82599 port using > > > rte_eth_dev_fdir_add_signature_filter (). > > > The function returns with ENOTSUP. > > > Doe's flow director supported for VF ? > > > What can be the reason for ENOTSUP ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ilan B
[dpdk-dev] CPU utilization without the time spent for polling the Ethernet
Hello, I would like to measure the CPU utilization without the time spent for polling the Ethernet. Doe's DPDK supports this in any way ? Thanks, Ilan B
