From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765805920 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:28:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 60AF780C764; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:33:56 -0700 From: Matthew Hall To: "Saha, Avik (AWS)" Message-ID: <20140923013356.GA26558@mhcomputing.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] LRU using DPDK 1.7 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, 23 Sep 2014 01:28:21 -0000 On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 01:08:21AM +0000, Saha, Avik (AWS) wrote: > I was wondering if there is way to use the rte_table_hash_lru without > building a pipeline - Basically using the same hash table like functionality > of add, delete and lookup without setting up a pipeline and connect it to > ports etc. I've been finding that rte_hash is designed only for some very specialized purposes. It doesn't work well if you use unexpected sizes of keys or want behavior that isn't precisely doing what the designers of the hash used it for... it's not very general-purpose. I did try to point out one example of the issue but I didn't get much response yet to my questions about its limitations and whether a more general-purpose table was available, or at least some discussion what rte_hash is for and what it's not for. Matthew.