From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 977555A5A for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:58:53 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k12so174857274lbb.1 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:58:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=IbHY7Jbx/xGUIZQwAs9ZS7Jj+X/CGfBuNmSpWyLrsfA=; b=0t9jBPeQT3UNmT+vOg/ldQ/GRLYNSXvl1FFIFqRP1nDM+LFFcQO6qBPG9iXWVLIooY DvoJh91tKGHCailh/Z6pGTnFR/+GnKL3Ol0XTgX5dptIG+beoA+yuZLk00UQd2P52wOu Vb5nLDXScsFhdEjI3wk/ppFXQNTrvKkl/Su4/GUumGQ6jHD90Y8PaVgJiv1cQpiNeW6p 0UewHGEIFInIw3gfUO3yjH+FcPUoCQOpOSApnLUzxUcJFHVPUAdKrQCFgePW2OYmkGnR qHF9yfDylpdYH/N3lTTKfm1ACZioWGcdXw6KOYMZvk1TOlo152tvhUlh60Xm9jppVDes qYwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=IbHY7Jbx/xGUIZQwAs9ZS7Jj+X/CGfBuNmSpWyLrsfA=; b=Rtc6byMgty+1CWEPM+powqqSyJuXVhozdkTusmF/mEshWHqAh6pf8cUCp0bP5jW1Ph JO1IQC7VsVgqlqqEyFOfLhkcjEh548xfoHdBhtFAHMQQbexAbQvO8n6tA6/aFto4Qf46 Gl7DLAGjbTXqFjpsDksPkgWPwvdPsNCylq28bWLBA2EYUPZ/dVSLaX5VPvsqNCoHyUqV o+TVHHg555/8SDf3X47xEKfBxTP51/fuANj/AFOm1uYVU4TunjfofM3WfHaJq0K/s6ce zwfZA4rP3oKhFyQgV0f0l9XQVy2djvq5FJcTQ2yEnjMSmdu7Tikk3AYcnuB9YXJaO1SH 37mA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKEKUl1BO5qMKNbXfEzfJUXkcBcfNh6HKRRZWF580g3gTnfO/cK0jim+fnNRklB1B19SZhg65Kwv5UJVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.140.169 with SMTP id rh9mr11879253lbb.69.1458687533292; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.233.36 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:58:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160322102740.GC19268@bricha3-MOBL3> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:58:53 -0700 Message-ID: From: Clarylin L To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Bruce Richardson , "dev@dpdk.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] 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, 22 Mar 2016 22:58:53 -0000 Ok...I think you meant there's a bug in the driver code when formatting multi-segment mbuf. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Stephen Hemminger < stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote: > Read the source. > > A multi-segment mbuf has the first mbuf with nb_segs > 1 and chained by > next pointer. > It is a bug in the creator of the mbuf, if number of segments and next > chain don't > match. > > There is a rte_pktmbuf_dump(), you can use to look at how your mbuf is > formatted. > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Clarylin L wrote: > >> Sorry my bad. The mbuf size has been accidentally changed to 3000. >> >> After fixing this by setting mbuf size to 2048, multi-segment mbuf still >> doesn't work. I was trying to send 2500-byte packets to the target system >> and was expecting to see two-segment mbuf chain), but got errors on it. >> >> Tue Mar 22 14:52:00 2016^@PMD: rte_enic_pmd: packet error >> >> >> Tue Mar 22 14:52:01 2016^@PMD: rte_enic_pmd: packet error >> >> >> Tue Mar 22 14:52:02 2016^@PMD: rte_enic_pmd: packet error >> >> >> Tue Mar 22 14:52:03 2016^@PMD: rte_enic_pmd: packet error >> >> >> Tue Mar 22 14:52:04 2016^@PMD: rte_enic_pmd: packet error >> >> >> Is enic supporting multi-segment mbuf? The dpdk version is 2.0.0. I have >> enabled jumbo-frame and enable_scatter for the port. >> >> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Bruce Richardson < >> bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:34:50PM -0700, Clarylin L wrote: >> > > I am trying multi-segment mbuf, but it seems not working. >> > > >> > > On my target host, the mbuf size is set to 2048 and I am trying to >> send >> > > large packet to it (say 2500 bytes without fragmentation) from another >> > > host. I enabled both jumbo_frame and enable_scatter for the port. But >> I >> > saw >> > > on the target only one mbuf is received with data_len equal to 2500 >> (it's >> > > supposed to be a two-mbuf chain). Although mbuf itself is not >> working as >> > > expected, ping between two hosts succeeded (large ping size; no >> > > fragmentation). >> > > >> > > 1. my mbuf size is only 2048. how can it support receiving such large >> > > packet in one mbuf? >> > > >> > > 2.how to make it work as expected (enable multi-segment mbuf and >> receive >> > > using mbuf chain when needed)? >> > > >> > > Appreciate your help. >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > when you get the single mbuf with data_len == 2500, what is the buf_len >> > value >> > reported as? >> > >> > /Bruce >> > >> > >