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 08C3B558B for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:51:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2016 02:51:24 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,410,1455004800"; d="scan'208";a="773722180" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2016 02:51:23 -0700 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.35]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.174]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:49:40 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: Clearasu , "Lu, Wenzhuo" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf? Thread-Index: AQHRiVf13oaMGzdTT0qF+NEKYJwizp9vk8WAgACYYZA= Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:49:40 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725836B21D58@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <6A0DE07E22DDAD4C9103DF62FEBC09090343FA66@shsmsx102.ccr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNTAxMzA0ZTMtMzFiNy00NGEzLTg3NWEtNWIwNWMyZmQ1YjkyIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6InFZSGdcL2ZcL1BFSWo2N243VWZWNGl6aFRlT1JmUXo1TmFDS2ZpRjZjazZ1UT0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf? 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, 29 Mar 2016 09:51:28 -0000 Hi, yep, it should be supported in dpdk 2.0. Did you setup rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len inside your rte_eth_conf? You need to setup both max_rx_pkt_len and jumbo_frame. You can have a look how dpdk examples doing it. Konstantin > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Clearasu > Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 2:38 AM > To: Lu, Wenzhuo > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf? >=20 > Hi Wenzhuo, >=20 > Thanks. For some reason, we have to stick to dpdk 2.0 for now. Is multi-s= egment mbuf supported in this version (any known issue > with multi-seg in this version?) or do we have to upgrade to latest dpdk = version for multi-segment support? >=20 > Clarylin >=20 > > On Mar 28, 2016, at 6:10 PM, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote: > > > > > > Hi Clarylin, > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Clarylin L > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 4:24 AM > >> To: dev@dpdk.org > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] is ixgbe supporting multi-segment mbuf? > >> > >> ixgbe_recv_scattered_pkts was set to be the rx function. Receiving pac= kets > > I see this function is already deprecated. Do you use an old version? W= ould you like to try the newest code? > > > >> smaller than mbuf size works perfectly. However, if an incoming packet= is > >> greater than the maximum acceptable length of one "mbuf" data size, re= ceiving > >> does not work. In this case, isn't it supposed to use mbuf chaining to= receive? > >> > >> The port has both jumbo_frame and enable_scatter being on. are these t= wo > >> flags good enough to make mbuf chaining going?