From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445786CCF; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:44:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTP id 3109F15E4B5D7; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:44:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id u9C5iN3b080172; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:44:23 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from qin.chunhua@zte.com.cn) To: dev@dpdk.org, users@dpdk.org, tim.odriscoll@intel.com MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: 3421A464:9F382155-4825804A:001F4E8F; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 Message-ID: From: qin.chunhua@zte.com.cn Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:44:41 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP6|November 21, 2013) at 2016-10-12 13:44:04, Serialize complete at 2016-10-12 13:44:04 X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn u9C5iN3b080172 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 05:44:38 -0000 ZTE is supportive of improving the DPDK project governance including moving the project to the Linux Foundation. DPDK has been used in lots of ZTE's equipments and solutions such as BBU,RNC,EPC,vEPC,vBRAS,vCPE,vRouter,vSwitch,and so on for many years. We have also done some optimization in DPDK. If the DPDK project governance moves to the Linux Foundation,we think this will promote ZTE and other companies to contribute in DPDK. Thanks Chunhua -----Original Message----- From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll, Tim Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 4:33 PM To: dev@dpdk.org; users@dpdk.org Subject: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red Hat. Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial products that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have all increased consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient in networking and NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure and governance are appropriate for such a critical project, and that they facilitate the project's continued growth. For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and make the move. The benefits of doing this would include: - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and controlled by any single company. - Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open. - Allow the project to avail of the infrastructure and services provided by the Linux Foundation. These include things like: Ability to host infrastructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an example of this - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed); Support for legal issues including trademarks and branding, and the ability to sign agreements on behalf of the project; Ability to pool resources for events and brand promotion; Safe haven for community IP resources. We don't propose to debate the details here. Instead, an open discussion session on DPDK Project Growth has been included in the agenda for the DPDK Summit Userspace 2016 event in Dublin. We propose using that session to agree that the DPDK project will move to the Linux Foundation, and then to move on to discussing the specifics. Things that we'll need to consider include: - Whether DPDK moves to the Linux Foundation as an independent project or as part of a larger project like FD.io. - Creation of a project charter similar to those created for FD.io ( https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) and Open vSwitch (see http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160619/5a2df53e/attachment-0001.pdf ). - Agreement on budget, membership levels etc. A draft budget was created by the LF during previous discussions ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256 ), but it is possible to adopt an even more lightweight model. We could look at alternatives to the Linux Foundation, but a) we've been talking to the LF for over a year now, and b) the preponderance of networking projects in LF, like ODL, FD.io, and OVS, makes it a natural destination for DPDK. As highlighted in previous discussions on this topic, it's important to stress that the intent is not to make significant changes to the technical governance and decision making of the project. The project has a strong set of maintainers and a Technical Board in place already. What's required is to supplement that with an open governance structure taking advantage of the services offered by the Linux Foundation. The purpose of this email is to outline what we want to achieve during that discussion session in Dublin, and to allow people to consider the issue and prepare in advance. If people want to comment via email on the mailing list, that's obviously fine, but we believe that an open and frank discussion when people meet in person in Dublin is the best way to progress this. For reference, below is a brief history of the previous discussions on this topic: September 2015: - A DPDK community call was held to discuss project growth and possible improvements. This was the first public discussion on possible governance changes. The agreed next step was to discuss this in more detail at the 2015 DPDK Summit Userspace event Dublin. Minutes of the call are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/024120.html. October 2015: - An open discussion session on project governance was held at the 2015 DPDK Summit Userspace event. For technical governance, we agreed to investigate creating a technical steering committee. For non-technical governance (including things like event planning, legal and trademark issues, hosting of the website etc.), we agreed to work with the Linux Foundation on a proposal for a lightweight governance model for DPDK. Minutes of the discussion are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/024825.html. - The proposal for a technical steering committee was subsequently discussed on the mailing list ( http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026598.html) and agreed, leading to the creation of the DPDK Technical Board ( http://dpdk.org/dev#board). December 2015: - A community call was held to discuss migration to the Linux Foundation. Mike Dolan (VP of Strategic Programs at The Linux Foundation) gave an overview of the LF and the services they can provide. We agreed to form a small sub-team (Dave Neary, Thomas Monjalon, Stephen Hemminger, Tim O'Driscoll) to work with the LF on a more detailed proposal. Minutes of the call are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/030532.html . February 2016: - A community call was held to discuss the LF budget proposal (see https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256 ). We agreed to discuss this further on the dev mailing list due to limited attendance on the call. Minutes of the call are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032720.html. - A request was made on the dev and announce mailing lists too determine who supported the proposal to move to the Linux Foundation ( http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033192.html). There was public support from Intel ( http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033297.html) and Brocade ( http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033359.html). 6WIND requested postponing the move for a few months ( http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033299.html). - The Fast Data (FD.io) project was established under the Linux Foundation ( https://fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation-forms-open-source-effort-advance-io-services ). June 2016: - The Open vSwitch project proposed moving to the Linux Foundation ( http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-June/021761.html). August 2016: - The Open vSwitch project moved to the Linux Foundation ( https://www.linuxfoundation.org/announcements/open-vswitch-joins-linux-foundation-open-networking-ecosystem ). >From aber@semihalf.com Wed Oct 12 09:37:11 2016 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com (mail-it0-f46.google.com [209.85.214.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D07F6CC1 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:37:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e203so79210633itc.0 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:37:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=semihalf-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7iVqFqj4agXn/Dbx41UxheEAXzSOExMxP/vRRHJySEs=; b=tWt8X3bIzpEqeuGU1SXAyEHe2AVfbt7+W2tzUQSrw0ZdvH08ARjIbcycLqJWxzdAdD 4rLwOQuUiqtJO2go+oeWmlb/HnxODm5U7ZwuQO1Z1ryKY7oVrXrHB4qQNAvS40HVgX/P Lns8ywZc4lRVBWmWtPU6MSv+zh4hSW80C/GsVXACLHVhINOsqIwWv5RB1o2yTGtqjHtw Dkj1MLlJxMUHiPhMOqFsj5UjSb/nrCCdDPpCMVMXfLAFvykhliT5415sHSlrXasQrN3D VKsGXn7dVxZt/vJlbH1S4bpVo/dHTMuYyl0Gf7lpg14rMq5Z7ujzkGM93abEqX3WoB+T gzfQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7iVqFqj4agXn/Dbx41UxheEAXzSOExMxP/vRRHJySEs=; b=hxx6GtedQMwGSLwGXmUJYc5TnXagl/ghsJw744yd4P5YvRz5yxHcKh9c9CMnIXyQea i3rPeW4YAKnFv0Lq/Fnq1Vz5c5/5UhfuYtq3xpKYCKpyIour5jWG+wOKxBwbwIrG+KA8 5PASA3QxqeM/ifOU9mjb+MCVaqv5ThnR9JpVEhixr0EfkhHHmuiVmqWDB8yNdywy0eoD EF4dxQJ7vFHM9fjhqa9OerTRp59XFa0ZdnqBkjzBIys0WSAzW8rI/+h2GzeU0zczZT8c Yf8J41qzVbtJYPhvjMgYRMU9Na2njszqjLP/lhgEGxA/KNYf/Uqw0LTCP4iL7Ac8r6zX gn1Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkYvFj14PBzwIGJUCPtFjXux2tOQ1AblbD02FL4cpDFE9t9/OPWKs1J88fCFnsWBG+fFxACeIp5Q22AdA== X-Received: by 10.36.53.130 with SMTP id k124mr1270373ita.38.1476257830164; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.117.79 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:36:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Andriy Berestovskyy Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:36:49 +0200 Message-ID: To: Aniraj Kesavan Cc: users Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Need help understanding rte_eth_dev_count X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:37:12 -0000 Hey, In 16.07 the PMDs drivers get register using the PMD_REGISTER_DRIVER(): http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tree/lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_dev.h?id=v16.07#n187 The macro uses constructor attribute, so the drivers get registered during the application startup, prior the main() function. Regarding the configuration, try to reproduce the steps listed in the documentation: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/nics/i40e.html Andriy On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Aniraj Kesavan wrote: > Hi, > > I'm very new to dpdk and I'm trying to set it up on a cluster with the > following configuration: > DPDK - 16.07 > Intel X710 2x10G Nics > Ubuntu 15.04 > > I could compile it, but when running sample applications such as > skeleton/basicfwd and testpmd, it fails saying the ports aren't detected. > > I have done the following: > enabled 1G huge pages and mounted them under /dev/hugepages > ran dpdk-devbind.py on the interfaces after which the status shows: > > Network devices using DPDK-compatible driver > ============================================ > 0000:04:00.0 'Ethernet Controller X710 for 10GbE SFP+' drv=igb_uio unused= > 0000:04:00.1 'Ethernet Controller X710 for 10GbE SFP+' drv=igb_uio unused= > > While running gdb over the basicfwd application (run as sudo as it seemed > like a requirement), it seems like rte_eth_dev_count is returning 0. Even > the testpmd application is reporting no ports available. I have tried the > portmask option and tried to pass the interfaces as -w arguments too. > > When I looked at rte_eth_dev_count, it's returning an unsigned static int > that is only updated by rte_eth_dev_allocate. Following the breadcrumbs, it > seemed like someone needed to invoke rte_eth_dev_register. I didn't see > that being called in the basicfwd example's codepath. > > Can anyone tell me what usually causes rte_eth_dev_register to run and > update the port number? Or is there anything I might have missed in the > configuration that's causing the device to not show up when the library is > looking for it. > > > > Thanks, > Aniraj > > > > -- > Aniraj Kesavan > > MS CS '15-'17, > University Of Utah > CS '08-'12, > Govt. Model Engineering College > alternate e-mail:anirajkalathel@gmail.com > http://www.cs.utah.edu/~aniraj/ -- Andriy Berestovskyy