From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <helin.zhang@intel.com> Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D10B2A07 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 12 May 2015 10:50:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2015 01:50:53 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,413,1427785200"; d="scan'208";a="569977474" Received: from kmsmsx153.gar.corp.intel.com ([172.21.73.88]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 May 2015 01:50:52 -0700 Received: from shsmsx151.ccr.corp.intel.com (10.239.6.50) by KMSMSX153.gar.corp.intel.com (172.21.73.88) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:50:51 +0800 Received: from shsmsx104.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.162]) by SHSMSX151.ccr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.251]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Tue, 12 May 2015 16:50:50 +0800 From: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com> To: Nissim Nisimov <NissimN@Radware.com> Thread-Topic: Intel fortville not working with multi-segment Thread-Index: AQHQiNQ/xilfK9NqzkGx1SGsGrsiU511okEQgABoB4CAAB19f4AB57dQ Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:50:50 +0000 Message-ID: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A85B341@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <94AA676E9B9A384A844E7692F3CAD906423BDF6F@ILMB1.corp.radware.com> <94AA676E9B9A384A844E7692F3CAD90642428A41@ILMB1.corp.radware.com> <94AA676E9B9A384A844E7692F3CAD90642432170@ILMB1.corp.radware.com>, <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A85A83D@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com> 5899d592-8c87-47d9-92b6-d34260ce1aa4@radware.com> In-Reply-To: 5899d592-8c87-47d9-92b6-d34260ce1aa4@radware.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "'dev@dpdk.org'" <dev@dpdk.org> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Intel fortville not working with multi-segment 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: Tue, 12 May 2015 08:50:55 -0000 Hi Nissim It seems that our validation guys here can reproduce it in our lab. I will = check that soon later, and update you later. Thank you very much for the good finding! Regards, Helin > -----Original Message----- > From: Nissim Nisimov [mailto:NissimN@Radware.com] > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 11:44 AM > To: Zhang, Helin > Cc: 'dev@dpdk.org' > Subject: RE: Intel fortville not working with multi-segment >=20 > Hi, >=20 > I am using PF pass-through and it doesn't work even with 2000 bytes of > server response page size. > Looks like the first segment of each session is not received. >=20 > When i am changing the server response size to 1000 bytes, all works as > expected. >=20 > I am working with dpdk 1.8 version. >=20 > Any idea why ? Is it related to i40e multi segment support? >=20 > Thx > Nissim >=20 > On May 11, 2015 5:03 AM, "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Nissim > > > > Are you using PF pass-through or VF pass-through? > > For PF pass-through, you might have already gotten the fix. > > For VF pass-through, there is >=20 > Hi Nissim >=20 > Are you using PF pass-through or VF pass-through? > For PF pass-through, you might have already gotten the fix. > For VF pass-through, there is a bug fix which is needed for supporting > jumbo frame and multiple mbuf. > http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/4641/ >=20 >=20 > Regards, > Helin >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Nissim Nisimov > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 3:48 AM > > To: Nissim Nisimov; 'dev@dpdk.org' > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Intel fortville not working with multi-segment > > > > Hi, > > > > can someone assist regarding this issue? > > > > Is it a known limitation in i40e/dpdk (no support for multi-segment)? > > > > Thx > > Nissim > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Nissim Nisimov > > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 5:44 PM > > To: 'dev@dpdk.org' > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Intel fortville not working with multi-segment > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am trying to work with Intel Fortville (XL710) NICs in Passthrough > > mode from a VM running dpdk app. > > > > > > First I didn't have any TX traffic from the VM, I got dpdk patch for > > this issue and it fixed it. > > (http://www.dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/4588/) > > > > But now I see that when trying to run multi-segment traffic not all > > the packets reaching the VM (I tested it on bare metal as well and saw > > the same issue) > > > > Is it a known issue? any workaround for it? > > > > Thanks, > > Nissim