Hi
does dpdk provides any API to turn on optical bypass functionality ?
please let me know.
tx,
Sharath
>> I finally got things working. I apparently missed an "ifconfig up" in
>> the
>> guest, before starting dpdk. I'm still confused why this would be needed. Is
>> dpdk unable to do a full initialization of the virtual function from the
>> guest?
>>
> You wouldn't be able to call ifconfig on your
Hi Mats
> The guest starts with loading the igbvf kernel driver, uses ifconfig up,
> then loads and binds to igb_uio. After that, DPDK works. If I skip any step
> here it doesn't work. Skipping "ifconfig" step resulted in packets being
> received but I couldn't send them, they just got queued up
Hi Anatoly,
>> The guest starts with loading the igbvf kernel driver, uses ifconfig
>> up,
>> then loads and binds to igb_uio. After that, DPDK works. If I skip any step
>> here it doesn't work. Skipping "ifconfig" step resulted in packets being
>> received but I couldn't send them, they just go
Hi Stephen,
Have you tried link time optimization on DPDK application? Does it
decrease the I-cache miss rate evidently?
thx &
rgds,
-Qinglai
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Stephen Hemminger
wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:11:29 -0500
> Ymo Lists wrote:
>
>> "Enqueuing and dequeuing items fr
>>> It's the latter, i.e. two primary processes running DPDK on the same VM but
>>> different VF devices. The VF devices belongs to the same physical devices
>>> though.
>>
>> I'll try that as well.
>
> If you need more help with how we set things up, I'll be happy to help you.
I found the bug, it
> I found the bug, it was an illegal arp entry that I had created causing the
> problem. So this case has been solved.
>
> I re-checked this ifconfig issue, and now I can get it to work without
> ifconfig
> in the guest. Not sure why it didn't work without it previously, but
> apparently, there i
Hi,
I have some doubts on the DPDK multi-process support:
1) According to the Programmers Guide (pag. 109 - 20.3 Multi-process
Limitations), one of the multi-process limitations is:
"All Intel? DPDK processes running as a single application and using shared
memory must have distinct coremask ar
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:49:47 +0200
jigsaw wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Have you tried link time optimization on DPDK application? Does it
> decrease the I-cache miss rate evidently?
>
> thx &
> rgds,
> -Qinglai
>
We use link-time-optimization without any problem.
No big performance gain, but I re
> Hi,
> I have some doubts on the DPDK multi-process support:
>
> 1) According to the Programmers Guide (pag. 109 - 20.3 Multi-process
> Limitations), one of the multi-process limitations is:
>
> "All Intel(r) DPDK processes running as a single application and using shared
> memory must have dist
If in-lining is that big a concern, you could create your own wrapper function
and explicitly mark it no-inline. Personally, I haven't seen any inordinate
increase in i-cache miss rates because of in-lining on the applications we have
- prefetchers on IA are usually capable of keeping up. Howeve
11 matches
Mail list logo
