Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-02 Thread lihuisong (C)
在 2023/11/3 0:51, Morten Brørup 写道: From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 17.24 On 11/2/2023 1:59 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote: 在 2023/11/2 0:08, Stephen Hemminger 写道: On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:36:07 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: Do we need to report this

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-02 Thread Ferruh Yigit
On 11/2/2023 1:59 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote: > > 在 2023/11/2 0:08, Stephen Hemminger 写道: >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:36:07 +0800 >> "lihuisong (C)" wrote: >> Do we need to report this size? It's a common feature for all PMDs. It would make sense then to have max_rx_bufsize set to 16K by defa

RE: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-02 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 18.06 > > On 11/2/2023 4:51 PM, Morten Brørup wrote: > >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 17.24 > >> > >> On 11/2/2023 1:59 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote: > >>> > >>

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-02 Thread Ferruh Yigit
On 11/2/2023 5:12 PM, Morten Brørup wrote: >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] >> Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 18.06 >> >> On 11/2/2023 4:51 PM, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 17.24 On 11/2

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-02 Thread Ferruh Yigit
On 11/2/2023 4:51 PM, Morten Brørup wrote: >> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] >> Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 17.24 >> >> On 11/2/2023 1:59 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote: >>> >>> 在 2023/11/2 0:08, Stephen Hemminger 写道: On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:36:07 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote

RE: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-02 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Ferruh Yigit [mailto:ferruh.yi...@amd.com] > Sent: Thursday, 2 November 2023 17.24 > > On 11/2/2023 1:59 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote: > > > > 在 2023/11/2 0:08, Stephen Hemminger 写道: > >> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:36:07 +0800 > >> "lihuisong (C)" wrote: > >> > Do we need to report this size?

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-01 Thread lihuisong (C)
在 2023/11/2 0:08, Stephen Hemminger 写道: On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:36:07 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: Do we need to report this size? It's a common feature for all PMDs. It would make sense then to have max_rx_bufsize set to 16K by default in ethdev, and PMD could then raise/lower based on hardwa

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-11-01 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:36:07 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: > > Do we need to report this size? It's a common feature for all PMDs. > > It would make sense then to have max_rx_bufsize set to 16K by default > > in ethdev, and PMD could then raise/lower based on hardware. > It is not appropriate t

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-31 Thread lihuisong (C)
Hi Stephen, 在 2023/10/31 23:40, Stephen Hemminger 写道: On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:57:45 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: User do decide their implement based on their cases in project. May it be a point for this that user don't want to do memcpy for multi segment packets and just use the first mbuf me

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-31 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 10:57:45 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: > >> User do decide their implement based on their cases in project. > >> May it be a point for this that user don't want to do memcpy for > >> multi segment packets and just use the first mbuf memory. > >> > >> Now that there is the "min_

RE: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-31 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: lihuisong (C) [mailto:lihuis...@huawei.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 31 October 2023 03.58 > > 在 2023/10/31 2:48, Stephen Hemminger 写道: > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:25:34 +0800 > > "lihuisong (C)" wrote: > > > >>> > The "min_rx_bufsize" in struct rte_eth_dev_info stands for the > minimum

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-30 Thread lihuisong (C)
在 2023/10/31 2:48, Stephen Hemminger 写道: On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:25:34 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: The "min_rx_bufsize" in struct rte_eth_dev_info stands for the minimum Rx buffer size supported by hardware. Actually, some engines also have the maximum Rx buffer specification, like, hns3.

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-30 Thread Stephen Hemminger
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 09:25:34 +0800 "lihuisong (C)" wrote: > > > >> The "min_rx_bufsize" in struct rte_eth_dev_info stands for the > >> minimum Rx buffer size supported by hardware. Actually, some > >> engines also have the maximum Rx buffer specification, like, hns3. > >> > >> If mbuf data room

Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-29 Thread lihuisong (C)
在 2023/10/29 23:48, Stephen Hemminger 写道: On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 09:48:44 +0800 Huisong Li wrote: The "min_rx_bufsize" in struct rte_eth_dev_info stands for the minimum Rx buffer size supported by hardware. Actually, some engines also have the maximum Rx buffer specification, like, hns3. If mb

[PATCH v3 0/3] introduce maximum Rx buffer size

2023-10-27 Thread Huisong Li
The "min_rx_bufsize" in struct rte_eth_dev_info stands for the minimum Rx buffer size supported by hardware. Actually, some engines also have the maximum Rx buffer specification, like, hns3. If mbuf data room size in mempool is greater then the maximum Rx buffer size supported by HW, the data size