From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com (mail-pf0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBC1FAE9 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:35:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pf0-f181.google.com with SMTP id 189so3692160pfu.3 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:35:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3ezHCVJcD+1erjZzT/VpT8bJDXkzCdUcNesMSHf1bCM=; b=YhOxY95aXeKzOYtS/+4tEdttFpUA7slBdFzkJi06cRoTNzf3wUrl3rViEdw2RxNuWx WBkGMsj4WEk9oEOx+S/DEBsR3GVkUp58cYCVTpaMroPkLNTLvriUiv62FTWpAni+e7wj LtrsE3/kzjy+GFOhaOvFNZf0Knnsn0Dx2yE5SfMWP640UXwlIDFhGa0fgfWscQve+Wlb 3YdMyTPoD4mF0H0w7vurd9diwUC+u+PyDIxg1wF8z1jTybProkg/+l7i3pCrLGMvpaFg XCMvZSvOdwZuoDtSBjy8YiZdqvnCu9tSwFCARsw3NEbgqHbgLP4H226soJw2v1IzTClk krzg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3ezHCVJcD+1erjZzT/VpT8bJDXkzCdUcNesMSHf1bCM=; b=BzvLlvrTLlNzpsbxhvY1j8l1UTckoLiGuDSMmu5YoXwpWUqWVbE4wTeTykWQX6Sos6 jX8S6ReXb0jCmyKQXsPnfgjS3Sr6d0lcHgD6Ca4z7eXUq03B+OT7XByqN9lw+SyK06qV kHn0mkgQTXwBrXTBKuKqN+egHiWPRbc35g4fQweOOPStplffj/ols580xPshDeBcXMc9 CB3pBXXKUJitiROblt1FSDotfujFbyPKTwblpT2p7QGbE+1TK4DNdFWTHsyW4fVTACLF xXdWdf82BiEp7G61vDHSwDyhOkAVmQ+UNwHgWuIWagwSxuYSanAWAi9WE3bLDIB56L7F Eu6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39km0OKkDNJTbqe8q2f78UXl41+rxnBawwxQBZc0Moh598XmecN1w0MeLcQbjIPbWQ== X-Received: by 10.98.26.210 with SMTP id a201mr6313287pfa.57.1486679726509; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:35:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from xeon-e3 (204-195-18-65.wavecable.com. [204.195.18.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p26sm31424847pfj.23.2017.02.09.14.35.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:35:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:35:19 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: "Lazarenko, Vlad (WorldQuant)" Cc: "users@dpdk.org" Message-ID: <20170209143519.7fd6061a@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <790E2AC11206AC46B8F4BB82078E34F80627DB12@EXUSMBX06.AD.MLP.com> References: <790E2AC11206AC46B8F4BB82078E34F80627DB12@EXUSMBX06.AD.MLP.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] When do we get non-contiguous mbufs from rte_eth_rx_burst? X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 22:35:27 -0000 On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 22:17:56 +0000 "Lazarenko, Vlad (WorldQuant)" wrote: > Hey everyone, > > Does anyone happen to know if it is possible to receive non-contiguous mbufs from rte_eth_rx_burst? If so, when would this happen? I am thinking that NICs with LSO enabled could possibly do this if data does not fit into RTE_MBUF_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE? But if the packet fits, I don't see why the driver could possibly split that across multiple mbufs. Any insight is highly appreciated. > > Thanks, > Vlad Any driver that handles jumbo frames is going to return a multiple segment mbuf when given a mbuf pool with smaller buffers. It is common to create 2K mbuf pool and handle 9K frames. > > ################################################################################### > > The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be > > subject to legal privilege, and is intended only for the individual named. > > If you are not the named addressee, please notify the sender immediately and > > delete this email from your system. The views expressed in this email are > > the views of the sender only. Outgoing and incoming electronic communications > > to this address are electronically archived and subject to review and/or disclosure > > to someone other than the recipient. > > ################################################################################### Please don't use such Lawyer stuff on public mailing lists. In fact according to the wording, it probably is against your rules for me to respond to it.