From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DBCF2BC2 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:13:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-io0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c63so1185056iof.0 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:13:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=s3MLPT0c2+G+3K3EAMO83OjJB7OlkCkYuI2qXtTphyA=; b=eHDskW6hDACNU7Y47OcJGkoJwpD+OJDMVx6dmP6cju3w3xv/FoIGhRVCHmIrWt6uWc dmKDTf9MgBgFyPrQR773URcIPM0OX6VxDkX1r/V27YUpB9r9QLzsyNfzM1Rck4YItX6I eOIU4Wn/Tr/lUCV29dBfY7agGwshN77gqHzDpx8V91p0bic3RRtMoMm2hbEphA/kgixW 1bscKik4BtWnjQVmFxXKYymhD3TGiatlmTGVV3x3k5HvosnmjGXpFGf0K7hCxrTSfeuR uko5lZDEQjDmkmr9lm6eIPLl2B6+BAqh7rHWFz3dH/ud1SIvxx5SKgau3ds5p/I3AHFS 4rRQ== 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=s3MLPT0c2+G+3K3EAMO83OjJB7OlkCkYuI2qXtTphyA=; b=Cx1GwAxXo/+W/oo4Ql+eNRzrc9uVdH74OIs9kPsZ4RWw2frE9MgP66pixkJfo943L4 Hs7Q3vq7cLP6qqFEZtI5oZp6ym6ynrviKZrhnbWm3W0kgUf58BhkwWECY9Qf4NAT50zT GAT/ab3wlYZmdl5VZX92oAlLT3oE73B64LT1sy09pmbm+H6nK7xuYe6/C3g8p7uY4LPx Ll0b8yQHsTuTPhBErVjzX5oChHpBOUkGjfi1PTUuWz+ryL6NzH6AinIIOU8JXUKQ6dkF 8VJ13YHIImM1SvuV8JNmFKH5yCDli8M9FHibqAP6T5+IBNovYNpfxcEllUqtyXGEuW9B ap7w== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJI6t+ZRxBE7S47DjwHwwm3NGVTOEEnpUF9ZWB/4CF0EB7IPewIguEJ5PIpXRWbuRFvYDVxz3LIWAAtWPQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.51.17.34 with SMTP id gb2mr20665693igd.13.1458684789062; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.118.226 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:13:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20160322102740.GC19268@bricha3-MOBL3> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:13:08 -0700 Message-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger To: Clarylin L 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 22:13:10 -0000 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 > > >