From: Matt Laswell <email@example.com>
To: Alex Markuze <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] segmented recv ixgbevf
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 08:48:50 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+GnqApDx88-vXQeid20wJgV2iER6dTD2XWARzrAaCY09WTCgg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
I ran into the same issue that Alex is describing here, and I wanted to
expand just a little bit on his comments, as the documentation isn't very
Per the documentation, the two arguments to rte_pktmbuf_pool_init() are a
pointer to the memory pool that contains the newly-allocated mbufs and an
opaque pointer. The docs are pretty vague about what the opaque pointer
should point to or what it's contents mean; all of the examples I looked at
just pass a NULL pointer. The docs for this function describe the opaque
pointer this way:
"A pointer that can be used by the user to retrieve useful information for
mbuf initialization. This pointer comes from the init_arg parameter of
This is a little bit misleading. Under the covers, rte_pktmbuf_pool_init()
doesn't threat the opaque pointer as a pointer at all. Rather, it just
converts it to a uint16_t which contains the desired mbuf size. If it
receives 0 (in other words, if you passed in a NULL pointer), it will use
2048 bytes + RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM. Hence, incoming jumbo frames will be
segmented into 2K chunks.
Any chance we could get an improvement to the documentation about this
parameter? It seems as though the opaque pointer isn't a pointer and
probably shouldn't be opaque.
Hope this helps the next person who comes across this behavior.
infinite io, inc.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Alex Markuze <email@example.com> wrote:
> For posterity.
> 1.When using MTU larger then 2K its advised to provide the value
> to rte_pktmbuf_pool_init.
> 2.ixgbevf rounds down the ("MBUF size" - RTE_PKTMBUF_HEADROOM) to the
> nearest 1K multiple when deciding on the receiving capabilities [buffer
> size]of the Buffers in the pool.
> The function SRRCTL register, is considered here for some reason?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-05 14:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-30 10:23 Alex Markuze
2014-10-30 11:09 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-10-30 12:48 ` Alex Markuze
2014-10-30 13:18 ` Bruce Richardson
2014-11-05 14:48 ` Matt Laswell [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).