From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp-fr.alcatel-lucent.com (fr-hpida-esg-02.alcatel-lucent.com [135.245.210.21]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A46C494 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:02:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (unknown [135.5.2.65]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id C1CBB4608041B; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:02:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (us70uwxchhub02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com [135.5.2.49]) by us70uusmtp3.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id t5TE2kp3030703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:02:46 GMT Received: from US70TWXCHMBA07.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.1.180]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:02:46 -0400 From: "Assaad, Sami (Sami)" To: Bruce Richardson Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] 10G Interface used as PCI Pass-Through reports 64bytes / packet Thread-Index: AdCwMQTUCXg/w0KeRdCfiJzhxdVx0wCPROcAAACzgQA= Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:02:45 +0000 Message-ID: <9478F0FB69DAA249AF0A9BDA1E6ED952188433D5@US70TWXCHMBA07.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <9478F0FB69DAA249AF0A9BDA1E6ED95218841F3C@US70TWXCHMBA07.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <20150629091832.GA10380@bricha3-MOBL3> In-Reply-To: <20150629091832.GA10380@bricha3-MOBL3> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.17] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 10G Interface used as PCI Pass-Through reports 64bytes / packet 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: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:02:48 -0000 Thanks Bruce for your response. This is a very odd issue. I'm connecting a Pktgen-DPDK server directly to o= ur application server running a DPDK Server/Client Process architecture. I'= m constantly seeing 64bytes per packet, no matter what packet size is being= received by the NIC running on the application server. I initially thought= that maybe the NIC was configured in a particular mode to improve the thro= ughput through the SR-IOV links. Based on your response, this is a wrong as= sumption. Interesting...I have tried both a HP and Intel NIC, DPDK 1.8 and = 2.0, and DPDK examples, all of which report 64 bytes/packet by the NIC port= s. I'm using CentOS 6.6 (2.6.32-504.23.4.el6.x86_64). I'm wondering if my P= CI pass-through is setup properly (?) ... yet, all the network traffic is b= eing handled as expected by the designed DPDK application. In case the issue is with the VM configuration (which I seriously doubt), I= 've copied my VM XML here: vm-sami 1eda9ae3-0155-de14-6e1c-0fbe0aa880f6 102400000 102400000 46 hvm Haswell Intel destroy restart restart /usr/libexec/qemu-kvm