From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 938B01B905 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 16:36:06 +0100 (CET) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2019 07:36:05 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,351,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="123215947" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 09 Feb 2019 07:36:05 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.199) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:36:05 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.143]) by fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Sat, 9 Feb 2019 07:36:04 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Filip Janiszewski CC: "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] RX of multi-segment jumbo frames Thread-Index: AQHUwGgyeG5oDlToQUuXamursyiZkKXYAoeAgAAargCAAAJsAA== Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 15:36:04 +0000 Message-ID: <2ACB2CB5-241D-44AC-8203-5E2827885150@intel.com> References: <4bd38b68-02e7-f031-5627-2bd2c9a38333@filipjaniszewski.com> <95B2277E-2E64-4703-97C3-022967A7F175@intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.229.89] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] RX of multi-segment jumbo frames X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 15:36:07 -0000 > On Feb 9, 2019, at 9:27 AM, Filip Janiszewski wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > Il 09/02/19 14:51, Wiles, Keith ha scritto: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Feb 9, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Filip Janiszewski wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> I'm attempting to receive jumbo frames (~9000 bytes) on a Mellonox card >>> using DPDK, I've configured the DEV_RX_OFFLOAD_JUMBO_FRAME offload for >>> rte_eth_conf and rte_eth_rxconf (per RX Queue), but I can capture jumbo >>> frames only if the mbuf is large enough to contain the whole packet, is >>> there a way to enable DPDK to chain the incoming data in mbufs smaller >>> than the actual packet? >>>=20 >>> We don't have many of those big packets coming in, so would be optimal >>> to leave the mbuf size to RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE and then configure >>> the RX device to chain those bufs for larger packets, but can't find a >>> way to do it, any suggestion? >>>=20 >>=20 >> the best i understand is the nic or pmd needs to be configured to split = up packets between mbufs in the rx ring. i look in the docs for the nic and= see if it supports splitting up packets or ask the maintainer from the mai= ntainers file. >=20 > I can capture jumbo packets with Wireshark on the same card (same port, > same setup), which let me think the problem is purely on my DPDK card > configuration. >=20 > According to ethtools, the jumbo packet (from now on JF, Jumbo Frame) is > detected at phy level, the couters rx_packets_phy, rx_bytes_phy, > rx_8192_to_10239_bytes_phy are properly increased. >=20 > There was an option to setup manually the support for JF but was remove > from DPDK after version 16.07: CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_SGE_WR_N. > According to the release note: >=20 > . > Improved jumbo frames support, by dynamically setting RX scatter gather > elements according to the MTU and mbuf size, no need for compilation > parameter ``MLX5_PMD_SGE_WR_N`` > . >=20 > Not quire sure where to look for.. >=20 maintainer is your best bet now. >>> Thanks >>>=20 >>> --=20 >>> BR, Filip >>> +48 666 369 823 >>=20 >> Regards, >> Keith >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > BR, Filip > +48 666 369 823 Regards, Keith