DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Laswell <laswell@infiniteio.com>
To: Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.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)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfHP0Vq5ExWpEBRtehJ7_SUBhbbTP8sfEDHyc164yAjMijZOw@mail.gmail.com>

Hey Folks,

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.

Matt Laswell
infinite io, inc.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Alex Markuze <alex@weka.io> 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?

      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]

Reply instructions:

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 \
    --in-reply-to=CA+GnqApDx88-vXQeid20wJgV2iER6dTD2XWARzrAaCY09WTCgg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=laswell@infiniteio.com \
    --cc=alex@weka.io \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \


* 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).