On 09/21/2016 19:29, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> Please, will you help reviewing this patch?
> Sure.
Sorry for being late to reply, I was a bit busy.
>
> 1. It adds a dependency on libbsd on Linux: bsd/sys/tree.h. Is this an
> expecte
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 10:55:43 -0700
Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:07:46PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > If you have 2G of huge memory and one 16M routes then the rules start to
> > kill an application.
> > Since huge memory is unpageable (pinned) then it is limited.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:07:46PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> If you have 2G of huge memory and one 16M routes then the rules start to
> kill an application.
> Since huge memory is unpageable (pinned) then it is limited.
Won't paging out routes result in very poor network performance?
If you have 2G of huge memory and one 16M routes then the rules start to
kill an application.
Since huge memory is unpageable (pinned) then it is limited.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:42:05PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > This was intent
2016-09-21 10:29, Matthew Hall:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > Please, will you help reviewing this patch?
>
> Sure.
>
> 1. It adds a dependency on libbsd on Linux: bsd/sys/tree.h. Is this an
> expected dependency of DPDK already? I use it in my code but n
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:42:05PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> This was intentional because rte_malloc comes out of huge page area and that
> resource is a critical resource. It could use rte_malloc() but that makes it
> more likely to break when doing Policy Based routing or VRF.
Can we get
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:29:05 -0700
Matthew Hall wrote:
> 5. It uses "malloc" instead of standard DPDK allocators. That's bad for me
> because I don't want to use libc malloc in my code. Only DPDK allocators and
> jemalloc.
This was intentional because rte_malloc comes out of huge page area and
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11:04PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Please, will you help reviewing this patch?
Sure.
1. It adds a dependency on libbsd on Linux: bsd/sys/tree.h. Is this an
expected dependency of DPDK already? I use it in my code but not sure it's
expected for everybody else.
2.
2016-09-19 14:22, Matthew Hall:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Nikita Kozlov wrote:
> > I have submitted a patch that, among other things, increase this size.
> > But it needs some reviews: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15295/
>
> A whole ton of us submitted patches to fix LPM l
On 09/19/2016 22:04, Shyam Sundar Govindaraj wrote:
> Hi
>
> In IPv4 lpm implementation, the next hop size is increased from 8-bit to
> 24-bit. Is there a plan to increase IPv6 lpm next hop size?
>
> Also, next hop size in this document needs to be updated, since it is not 1
> byte anymore.
> htt
Hi
In IPv4 lpm implementation, the next hop size is increased from 8-bit to
24-bit. Is there a plan to increase IPv6 lpm next hop size?
Also, next hop size in this document needs to be updated, since it is not 1
byte anymore.
http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/prog_guide/lpm_lib.html
Thanks
Shyam
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:18:48PM +0200, Nikita Kozlov wrote:
> I have submitted a patch that, among other things, increase this size.
> But it needs some reviews: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/15295/
A whole ton of us submitted patches to fix LPM lately.
But fixing LPM6 was deleted from t
12 matches
Mail list logo
