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 61F66C4E2 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:48:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (99-34-229-174.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.34.229.174]) by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFD6780C003; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Matthew Hall In-Reply-To: <20150427150624.68ef88bc@urahara> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 22:48:04 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <70A81987-799B-4E55-82BD-918C32D6BE6B@mhcomputing.net> References: <20150427150624.68ef88bc@urahara> To: Stephen Hemminger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] What to do about UIO breakage in 2.0 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, 28 Apr 2015 05:48:07 -0000 Stephen, This mail is a bit confusing for end users of DPDK which might be why = you didn't get many replies yet. If I understand this mail right, you're saying that nothing works? Or it = works, but igb_uio doesn't work, and the performance isn't good because = MSI-X is not working? I am confused what you're saying exactly. Previously I think we knew we needed to use igb_uio for almost all the = non-virtual NIC PMDs, and some of the virtual NIC PMDs also, before they = would load and get access to the PCIe BARs, etc. for the NICs. But now = it sounds totally changed so I'm not sure what to reply. Can you give a use case, from the perspective of the guy trying to = bootstrap EAL / DPDK, what does this problem do to him if he tries it = with DPDK 2.X? Matthew. On Apr 27, 2015, at 3:06 PM, Stephen Hemminger = wrote: > I raised the issue, but people seem to be ignoring that fact that = igb_uio > was broken by the introduction of UIO PCI generic in 2.0. >=20 > There are three options: > 1. Remove IGB_UIO only use UIO PCI generic. > Downside there is no MSI-X support for UIO PCI generic. > 2. Revert UIO PCI generic support > 3. Replace both of the above with something better. >=20 > I am working on #3 but it will not be ready for 2.0.1 and there > is no solution for users of 2.0 and any future stable code.