From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com
 [209.85.217.175]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B4BC630
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:04:54 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by lbnk3 with SMTP id k3so20603317lbn.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:04:54 -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:content-type;
 bh=kmpC08hwJdblfT3TrSHSnUK9zdKv49QFqwG1Io5U894=;
 b=ZWgZlJnHlJcaaHz9yyJzODiewhi4ffOmUe7yYVZPipENplPf9Wy7QurO70R0Tz8Skt
 8ke1lw1wKdmXUCfYKgO8o0j/EwmBNMxPwCpyzckFOpfpBIq9n0yU47JaOz8Kei5BrTJW
 /babc2hfqEBIv6GSiCyphw+EPxFZf3ox1VQEXp6EQ0iZOD3iQRCCzZXTRtVqBNUPvxqd
 SFcYh93JBFusvZ7iw/ZMK2jZus+6dsNxnLGU6bBPXx5yDnau5V9261RMrRxcztC2rDAC
 oShRqWAkmqVuZwd+WWaZu/uLpcetORgLshiZ4ExMKNLklP09kSi9ss1PLKP4afrFXhUB
 hRow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.45.9 with SMTP id i9mr37913933lam.87.1435129494014; Wed,
 24 Jun 2015 00:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.10.229 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150624051513.GA18427@mhcomputing.net>
References: <5A3882CB-0DE0-43DB-8DCA-051D561AA943@mhcomputing.net>
 <CANDrEHnuEwX6WGBFbMiB0C38m6axMRiAe3z=9OcjsZkGbPZSSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150622175302.GA15788@mhcomputing.net>
 <20150622235102.41c3619a@uryu.home.lan>
 <20150623063024.GA3458@mhcomputing.net>
 <CANDrEHnh-cbT0ATSuvVjJ2xMyNL+tW+s3HY0f+=FSwpNF0uZNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150624041314.GA15524@mhcomputing.net>
 <20150624042859.GA16171@mhcomputing.net>
 <20150624051513.GA18427@mhcomputing.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:04:53 +0300
Message-ID: <CANDrEHkP3t4kcbKeDezOVOnrTmgQ8Y+7CkdXwQgeUKgcW38wuQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vladimir Medvedkin <medvedkinv@gmail.com>
To: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Cc: "<dev@dpdk.org>" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] rte_lpm with larger nexthops or another method?
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 07:04:54 -0000

Hi Matthew,

I published changes to rte_lpm_tbl24_entry only because it was just an idea
:) So rte_lpm_tbl8_entry should look like:
struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry {
        uint32_t next_hop :24; /**< next hop. */
        uint32_t valid       :1; /**< Validation flag. */
        uint32_t valid_group :1; /**< Group validation flag. */
        uint32_t depth       :6; /**< Rule depth. */
};

,and
struct rte_lpm_rule {
        uint32_t ip; /**< Rule IP address. */
        uint32_t  next_hop; /**< Rule next hop. */
};
, and different defines and checks should be modified too.


2015-06-24 8:15 GMT+03:00 Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>:

> OK, I went and made a whole ton of patches to LPM and the tests and
> examples,
> now the selftest errors out... but I think maybe I don't have an adequate
> amount of hugepages. How much hugepage memory did people have when they
> did the selftest successfully before?
>
> I just keep seeing this over and over...
>
> RTE>>lpm_autotest
> Error at line 293:
> ERROR: LPM Test tests[i]: FAIL
> LPM: LPM memory allocation failed
>
> Matthew.
>