From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it1-f178.google.com (mail-it1-f178.google.com [209.85.166.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F6D239 for ; Mon, 5 Nov 2018 04:57:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-it1-f178.google.com with SMTP id e11so7464481itl.5 for ; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 19:57:22 -0800 (PST) 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=EduZZsPDVPzUTjcQAz5DiH4iEFcUNQ3LG56P6W2bf+8=; b=Qe1K8fsR9oVegnXiRweMyqjho0D30Cp+boRNcUe753LM6c/Oft1/mOku9UE0gCHpD/ nXgNzsZSXM+Ahso4+mIakxx8NOoKtEqJQyv9lApx9XTvKJeUZcb/C3Azu787pWDb8SlP hFkmqwE1tCpHqwG3ynmxiBdcAXM1PP2/iChE1MxmyhU32RAKYk7lND6OSIIDzxkAdTsL tH8dJNfehpeFicMO6tz0K+Uwx50MKGh8wJwr1qvMVq7KsNOqrlROe6scyrnP0Lx9TjvS Y8xNYWre8RQEEoQ8jq57sePSMidz9vRQLBA6fz0WG8+6GfrbvSCcBUZa0kvf5lfObADJ INRw== 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=EduZZsPDVPzUTjcQAz5DiH4iEFcUNQ3LG56P6W2bf+8=; b=AxLqGsTIWF++EIqqaSMqULNC47uSyqZEWaGIyIEoFERZrjXZI2vVzf/IQB5jgU7jd0 MiKeL+i0aeruU56dcBUOJ3O7Q5jEeRhX/N+ux3Mm52dCCijKHy4PWDHRRHOZYHWTn1TV 4RvQBQSguYR24AhqZ3NKBZeOYvG3/lCtFiSAntWVoIBm6vZX0eAjSid+I/mvj/tY4vHe lhTRnHqsOh8KIhttXwo2yt5wpyDDrufz3SKKCECYVUXXUOZ203RuPrRy8XRKx7+HbH02 Cc9w5Xant+5+0kA9sdn7SX4mPKSAJ3Y3pD+ZzhAOgJ6Bik3pDZhgVmoScrPYPmCzTJ+s p51Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gI5vp8QBa1bkbIBZaLRQzHAPcBEmebg48CXiQIze7JvEvXiK5BG 4T/+rb2z3RLP3p9Ay2xZmJoc6l1PqOx+ST7TOxqtHEsl X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5cCtYooQm75qBeQ6dcl+vwGLG9mIi0L7Bsg8EBnxm9NB3s/cuPVPsi5e/Pm56uLxHs27S513kis/4a76gpT1N8= X-Received: by 2002:a02:5f18:: with SMTP id r24-v6mr19806847jab.10.1541390241297; Sun, 04 Nov 2018 19:57:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Sungho Hong Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 20:57:09 -0700 Message-ID: To: users@dpdk.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Subject: [dpdk-users] Understanding the Proper way of using ip fragmentation 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: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 03:57:22 -0000 Hello DPDK experts, I am having trouble applying ip fragmentation in multiple cores. *My ultimate questions is whether it is possible to have multiple ip fragmentation table allocated with each different direct and indirect pool. * Really thankful if somebody can point out what I am doing wrong here or provide me with some alternative solutions. *Purpose* I am trying to apply ip fragmentation in multiple cores, and maximize the throughput performance with messages that are bigger than MTU. for each local & remote host (using 1 to 8 logical cores) 1 ~ 4 for transferring fragmented message 4 ~ 8 for receiving and assemble message *Method of Throughput -testing * Sending 4KB message from local and remote echos the message back to the local. *Problem * If I try to allocate fragmentation table to each of the cores, I get a segmentation error, and this happens no matter I shrink the size of the fragmentation table. The way I have tried to allocate the pools and frag-table are like this below. for each coreid, coreid < allocated cores; coreid++ fragmentation_table[coreid] = rte_ip_frag_table_create(...); direct_pool[coreid] = rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(...); indirect_pool[coreid] rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(...); So alternatively, I have allocated multiple fragmentation table for each lcores but let the direct and indirect pools be shared together. for each coreid, coreid < allocated cores; coreid++ fragmentation_table[coreid] = rte_ip_frag_table_create(...); direct_pool = rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(...); indirect_pool = rte_pktmbuf_pool_create(...); *Situation* Now when I send messages using multiple cores from local to remote host, the remote host only successfully receive the message when I send the message adding a delay such as ( adding sleep(1); for each message send. ) I was able to receive the message from local to remote. But, cannot receive any data when I try to send them without any delay. Personally, I suspect that I should allocate direct pool and indirect pool for each logical cores, and I think that is the main issue. Since I was only able to successfully use the frag-table using only one logical core, I suspect that I am not using the fragmentation table correctly in multiple cores. I really want to hear from the DPDK experts about this issue I am facing, and will be really grateful for any advice on this...