[dpdk-dev] Regarding mbuf allocation/free in secondary process

2016-02-10 Thread Lawrence MacIntyre
o blocking reads on those. However, the overhead of > using > such structures can be severe making them unusable for many packet processing > applications. An alternative might be to use some small sleep calls i.e. > nanosleep > between polls of the SW ring in cases where traffic ra

[dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf size for jumbo frame

2016-01-26 Thread Lawrence MacIntyre
k and we see 3x > performance improvement over 1500 mtu. Memory is not an issue. > > My only concern is that would all the dpdk drivers work with larger > size mbuf? > > Thanks, > Saurabh > > On Jan 26, 2016 6:23 AM, "Lawrence MacIntyre" <mailto:macintyrelp at ornl

[dpdk-dev] rte_mbuf size for jumbo frame

2016-01-26 Thread Lawrence MacIntyre
f to enable Jumbo frames. >> Do you guys see any problem with that? Would all the drivers like >> ixgbe, i40e, vmxnet3, virtio and bnx2x work with larger rte_mbuf size? >> >> We would want to avoid detailing with chained mbufs. >> >> /Saurabh -- Lawrence MacInt