ation (e.g. the
> application opens both netmap:eth4 and netmap:eth5, and decides which one
> to use for transmission depending on which one is up...).
>
> Cheers,
> Vincenzo
>
> 2017-06-29 4:16 GMT+02:00 Paras Jha :
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a bonded i
Hi all,
I have a bonded interface bond0 which enslaves eth4 and eth5. When trying
to open the devices eth4 or eth5 via netmap, I get a "device in use" error.
Opening the bond0 interface directly in netmap works, however it is in
emulated mode (as expected of a pseudointerface)
What is the idiomat
Is it still possible to share ring buffers across multiple physical network
cards for zero-copy mode, or does the application need to take this into
account and perform a one-copy?
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
zerocopy thing: your application isn't aware
> of the emulated or native mode and can zerocopy slots between netmap rings.
>
> Cheers,
> Vincenzo
>
> 2017-04-12 4:04 GMT+02:00 Paras Jha :
>
>> Apologies, by KB I meant kernel bypass, since it is possible to open a
>
u're opening a netmap pipe
> in the same netmap memory area as the one used by nm_open("netmap:em3",
> ...).
> As a result, you can zero-copy packets from NIC rings to pipe rings.
>
> What do you mean by "KB mode"?
>
> Cheers,
> Vincenzo
>
>
Hi all,
Is it possible to have a netmap pipe share memory with a netmap port opened
in KB mode for zero-copy purposes?
All the best
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any
al
> interfaces share the same memory region, while each VALE port uses a
> private memory region.
> This is however being changed to ease arbitrary association between
> interfaces and memory regions.
>
> Cheers,
> Vincenzo
>
> 2016-11-17 22:50 GMT+01:00 Paras Jha
Hi all,
I had a quick question about some of the implications of sharing packet
buffer memory between multiple interfaces. Assuming an arbitrary amount of
interfaces (> 2) are linked together with NM_OPEN_NO_MMAP and share the
same memory, would this have any issues with lock contention?
Sorry in
