From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailout1.w1.samsung.com (mailout1.w1.samsung.com [210.118.77.11]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3508CCE7 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 11:48:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout1.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTP id <0O0U00MT661B8N80@mailout1.w1.samsung.com> for dev@dpdk.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:48:47 +0000 (GMT) X-AuditID: cbfec7f5-f79b16d000005389-15-5694da0f9930 Received: from eusync2.samsung.com ( [203.254.199.212]) by eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (EUCPMTA) with SMTP id DB.BA.21385.F0AD4965; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:48:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fedinw7x64 ([106.109.131.169]) by eusync2.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.31.0 64bit (built May 5 2014)) with ESMTPA id <0O0U00E6D619L360@eusync2.samsung.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:48:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Pavel Fedin To: "'Tan, Jianfeng'" , 'Rich Lane' References: <1446748276-132087-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <1452426182-86851-1-git-send-email-jianfeng.tan@intel.com> <058a01d14c7b$5cdc60d0$16952270$@samsung.com> <5693CFE4.4060405@intel.com> <009a01d14d0c$3ab6cd60$b0246820$@samsung.com> <00b101d14d14$bab82510$30286f30$@samsung.com> <5694BE75.7010708@intel.com> In-reply-to: <5694BE75.7010708@intel.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 13:48:45 +0300 Message-id: <00d901d14d26$d04fc600$70ef5200$@samsung.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-index: AQLOfZuJ4skKn5NxqR5aD7duH+7e0wGBr/PNAeo3hAkCmaBQ8QL0azowAiKt1OUB07J7gwIXarlcnIUTONA= Content-language: ru X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsVy+t/xK7r8t6aEGdxdwmkx9+UPJot3n7Yz WbTPPMtk0T37C5vF39mtrBb/f71itTjW84nV4tChw4wWm95NYrW4PuECqwOXx4PLN5k8fi1Y yurRcuQtq0fjcwmPxXteMnk0v3jO4jHvZKDH+31X2QI4orhsUlJzMstSi/TtErgyzt34zVxw i71i67OFrA2MM9i6GDk5JARMJJZ8f8UEYYtJXLi3HijOxSEksJRR4sTCu0wQzndGiYUTL7OD VLEJqEuc/vqBBcQWEQiX6PjdxAhSxCwwgUniyOHNrBAdU5mB2tcAORwcnAKaEluuCYGYwgKm Eh8XCIP0sgioSlyYMxFsDq+ApcTWX9fYIGxBiR+T77GAlDMD7ZoyJRckzCygLfHk3QVWiEMV JHacfc0IcUKKxJxnK9khakQkpv27xzyBUWgWkkmzECbNQjJpFpKOBYwsqxhFU0uTC4qT0nON 9IoTc4tL89L1kvNzNzFCouzrDsalx6wOMQpwMCrx8GawTwkTYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMJrtwUo xJuSWFmVWpQfX1Sak1p8iFGag0VJnHfmrvchQgLpiSWp2ampBalFMFkmDk6pBsaWTQsXNp44 Y1MUt0x1u6z4Tw6VvY6bDRVv2sb1hKfZl9l/Op8orFf7N8z0ReaOh5luci8qIj1vb52i1NQW JRCxxe6KfP0Vz/W2qddunvX+oGi5NL0w3Ca3/OGTHw+ai+w/5L3czNUmMm8yn8rX6+8L+WML yjj8K+bu4i2xPPvg/NK0rIvHryixFGckGmoxFxUnAgANhF8ergIAAA== Cc: nakajima.yoshihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp, "'Michael S. Tsirkin'" , dev@dpdk.org, ann.zhuangyanying@huawei.com Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] virtio support for container X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 10:48:48 -0000 Hello! > Your guess makes sense because current implementation does not support > multi-queues. >=20 > From you log, only 0 and 1 are "ready for processing"; others are = "not > ready for processing". Yes, and if study it even more carefully, we see that we initialize all = tx queues but only a single rx queue (#0). After some more code browsing and comparing the two patchsets i figured = out that the problem is caused by inappropriate VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ = flag. In your RFC you used different capability set, while in v1 you = seem to have forgotten about this. I suggest to temporarily move hw->guest_features assignment out of = virtio_negotiate_features() into the caller, where we have = eth_dev->dev_type, and can choose the right set depending on it. With all mentioned fixes i've got the ping running. Tested-by: Pavel Fedin Kind regards, Pavel Fedin Expert Engineer Samsung Electronics Research center Russia