From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <maverickjin88@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-it1-f180.google.com (mail-it1-f180.google.com
 [209.85.166.180]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17875F94
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Wed, 31 Oct 2018 02:55:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-it1-f180.google.com with SMTP id i191-v6so16247752iti.5
 for <users@dpdk.org>; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=U5qVzStFwG3AKDfaANFEbN3UvnqmUy1BaZP3t9ZgtQw=;
 b=IXaB3zRDitCMh51+OInlP8PBQzwWoMxB5quJtVNUVU2FZ4uFWNGTx94nlXrFqw+aYH
 Azzh3SQbo98unqXY3nDbOXtF9Go7w7Na2G/jG2yVyqC9CowYC7aKeUO5g7JhM4UemOBV
 YyatTHs4r3f7xyDUTd5I/rD9eK0Vh+O8GJBC4A56r3yXo4+mRreC4Lb7LqmD+4+GrUw0
 3NGfvIRyJ0ElahQmCQ8LR0xJL2972hvaHt90Z2NkMxez8sbDe+QGVE56hqyOHXEYd576
 Ry5J0K6e8M/pQ2cr5FXkx2AxvpNtMeB6ALHKiFv8hgVE1zZ2JE1itTemf0bN6DxkDF7+
 F5kw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=U5qVzStFwG3AKDfaANFEbN3UvnqmUy1BaZP3t9ZgtQw=;
 b=Z4PqtwX5X5DYmG2Fg5pVxS/nG/2bfzM0YE2pmBe+NQa1ukYRbFIBY/X2h09KsWCW2G
 TO2FUw1kANlcIu2hTlGu77++NNGCvg0JDKP7OXnn9ygBN0HD9n67AbgAc8BIOxCVC7jj
 +8VPNmdVvxc4t6tsF6JrXZX1SdXQ2SjN08oVUubxxsAmFtuXhJYFsOi94H/zM6jXQq1a
 R4SG0BgzQltOwmsJpNbCtCnGt0JjwvwXCJueeDLZSmpm5G4BXaRTiVHr2Ltu5C5hT6iY
 UOFsPHCivcrIG5c4mTmwCD+Kh/5wTIQ6UnsAYrMNKBa+mi/PjpGh7mtBuDmUEWY5JqkR
 Xd8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gJ+6vl+4qQsRbKkz3xYTGl5OlOweJhUY47lP+9z4+DGN4jNatWu
 C3y8d+Md29b2j95maH85K7lkO2+c2MKrcLSIJUmxmQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cWQuzraRjotkPQeLv0EyZ4FWkaEEQItsGcoRMnA9BP0GGOrvOHQvVBB4gv/BieKgTnYDpqf5hDtrwvbB2aYII=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:ce03:: with SMTP id v3-v6mr781822itg.19.1540950914073; 
 Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Sungho Hong <maverickjin88@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:55:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK8vx=gepAc=2JK_jDgEhjLSEXSw6bnMfZwRvU8mg4mzc0VvLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: users@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-users] Ideal design to use ip-fragmentation using multiple
	lcores
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 01:55:15 -0000

Hello DPDK experts,

I have a question of how to ideally use ip fragmentation and assemble using
N number of logical cores each associated with tx&rx queues.

Should the ip fragmentation table be single received by a single rx-queue?

Because I am not sure whether I will receive all the fragmented messages
correctly when I try to receive and combine the packets using multiple
rx-queues with multiple logical cores.

I have currently build an example that only uses one rx-queue with multiple
tx-queues and assemble the fragmented messages with a single frag-table.
But I am not sure how to scale this..