i Venky,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jasvinder
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Venky Venkatesh
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2023 8:52 AM
> *To:* dev@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* [2nd Try]:Re: Traffic Management API Questions
>
>
>
ease see inline;
>
>
>
> Jasvinder
>
>
>
> *From:* Venky Venkatesh
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2023 11:56 AM
> *To:* Singh, Jasvinder
> *Cc:* dev@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [2nd Try]:Re: Traffic Management API Questions
>
>
>
> Hi Jasvinder,
>
>
and
> all the subports would be served individually in round robin manner. If it
> doesn’t suit your requirement, you need to make changes as you suggested
> above.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> -Venky
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 9:24 AM Singh, Jasvinder <
Hi,
I was looking at the DPDK Traffic Management API. I wanted to clarify some
things that I understand from the code (for software based TM
implementation (at 20.11)) vs the documentation.
- The documentation says "Traffic shaping: single/*dual rate,* private (*per
node*) and shared (by *mu
Hi,
I was looking at the DPDK Traffic Management API. I wanted to clarify some
things that I understand from the code (for software based TM
implementation (at 20.11)) vs the documentation.
- The documentation says "Traffic shaping: single/*dual rate,* private (*per
node*) and shared (by *
Hi,
I was looking at the DPDK Traffic Management API. I wanted to clarify some
things that I understand from the code (for software based TM
implementation (at 20.11)) vs the documentation.
- The documentation says "Traffic shaping: single/*dual rate,* private (*per
node*) and shared (by *mu
Hi,
Can someone pls get back on these
Thanks
-Venky
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:07 AM Venky Venkatesh <
vvenkat...@paloaltonetworks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I was looking at the DPDK Traffic Management API. I wanted to clarify some
> things that I understand from the code (for so
Hi,
I am relatively new to DPDK and am trying to use the eventdev library.
The sw_evdev runs on a single core (service core). And then there is
rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_ which links the sw_evdev to the ethdev. This adapter
is also service core based. The DSW runs on all cores – and thus doesn’t u
On 12/18/18, 10:53 PM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
On 2018-12-18 02:46, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> Hi,
> I am relatively new to DPDK and am trying to use the eventdev library.
> The sw_evdev runs on a single core (service core). And then there is
rte_event_et
Couple of questions on DSW scheduling:
1. how was the correctness of the scheduling verified -- specifically the
fact that ATOMIC is not scheduled simultaneously to 2 cores? I can think of
feeding the same flowid on all cores and see where the various cores are busy.
Any other test cases tha
Hi,
We are considering using a multi-process mode of the DPDK with the event
generators and consumers being spread across multiple processes (on different
cores). We are also considering using the DSW eventdev. Is the DSW designed for
such a use case? If so, are there some restrictions and somet
On 12/21/18, 10:24 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
On 2018-12-21 06:13, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> Hi,
> We are considering using a multi-process mode of the DPDK with the event
generators and consumers being spread across multiple processes (on different
cor
On 12/21/18, 10:59 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
On 2018-12-21 19:34, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/18, 10:24 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-21 06:13, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> > Hi,
Hi,
https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2018-September/111344.html mentions that
there is a sample application where “worker cores can sustain 300-400 million
event/s. With a pipeline
with 1000 clock cycles of work per stage, the average event device
overhead is somewhere 50-150 clock cycles/eve
Mattias,
Thanks for the prompt response. Appreciate your situation of not being able to
share the proprietary code. More answers inline as [VV]:
--Venky
On 11/14/18, 11:41 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote:
On 2018-11-14 20:16, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> Hi,
&g
On 11/14/18, 9:46 PM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote:
>
>
> On 11/14/18, 9:46 PM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
> wrote:
>
> On 2018-11-14 22:56, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> > Mattias,
> > Thanks for the prompt response. Appreciate your situation
On 1/7/19, 7:36 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote:
On 2018-12-21 20:12, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/18, 10:59 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-21 19:34, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> >
&g
On 1/17/19, 11:10 AM, "Venky Venkatesh"
wrote:
On 1/7/19, 7:36 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
On 2018-12-21 20:12, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/18, 10:59 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
Hi,
I am using the DSW code from 18.11 with the default settings for all the
#defines. Here are some more details:
I have an 8 port system with 1 queue.
All ports can inject events. Port 0 and 7 inject events rarely.
Ports 1-6 are linked to the queue and hence dequeue events.
I see that in steady
On 4/3/19, 11:34 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote:
On 2019-04-03 20:17, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using the DSW code from 18.11 with the default settings for all the
#defines. Here are some more details:
> I have an 8 port system with 1 queue.
>
On 4/3/19, 12:02 PM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote:
On 2019-04-03 20:36, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
>
>
> On 4/3/19, 11:34 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
>
> On 2019-04-03 20:17, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> > Hi,
&g
On 4/4/19, 12:40 AM, "Mattias Rönnblom" wrote:
On 2019-04-04 07:39, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
>
>
> On 4/3/19, 12:02 PM, "Mattias Rönnblom"
wrote:
>
> On 2019-04-03 20:36, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> >
Hi,
This concerns eventdev being used in a DPDK multi-process mode wherein the
PRIMARY process sets up the device, ports, queues and linkages and the
SECONDARY processes are the real workers to which the events are load
balanced to via the queues.
My question (for both the sw evdev PMD and the DSW
Hi,
This is concerning the DSW PMD for eventdev. In our application we put some
debugs to see that the same ATOMIC flow isn't scheduled to 2 different
cores. Strangely enough we hit it. Not sure if we are missing something OR
it is a bug.
We put some instrumentation code inside DSW and found the f
7 ("event/dsw: add load balancing")
> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
>
> Reported-by: Venky Venkatesh
> Signed-off-by: Mattias Rönnblom
> ---
> drivers/event/dsw/dsw_event.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/event/dsw/dsw_event.c b/dri
I see that the provision in 18.11 eventdev DSW for maximum number of queues
is
#define DSW_MAX_QUEUES (16)
1. If the number of queues needed is to be increased to 7 bits (i.e.
128) is there any issue (correctness, scale, performance) other than
increased data structure size?
2. I se
<
mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2019-12-06 01:26, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> > I see that the provision in 18.11 eventdev DSW for maximum number of
> queues
> > is
> >
> > #define DSW_MAX_QUEUES (16)
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. If t
only for FORWARDs ... there are
more details of course.
Hope this explains
Thanks
-Venky
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 12:37 PM Mattias Rönnblom <
mattias.ronnb...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> On 2019-12-06 17:32, Venky Venkatesh wrote:
> > Thanks Mattias for the clarifications.
> >
>
28 matches
Mail list logo
