As I remember, the problem is that inside l3fwd each I/O lcore tries to claim a TX queue on each port in use for itself (to avoid any synchronisation overhead). Obviously on some legacy (and virtual) devices this is not possible. On l3fwd-vf, several lcores share the same TX queue. (synchronisation is done on port basis right now, i.e. only one tx queue per port is always used). Konstantin
> -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Zhang, Helin > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:51 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon; Liu, Yong; Cao, Waterman > Cc: dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example > > Marvin/Waterman > > Could you help to check if l3fwd is good enough for all cases (1g/10/40g, PF > and VF, single queue/multiple queue)? > We aim to remove l3fwd-vf to reduce an example application which is not so > necessary. > Thank you! > > Regards, > Helin > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 3:30 AM > > To: Zhang, Helin > > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Wu, Jingjing > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] examples: remove l3fwd-vf example > > > > 2015-07-14 14:50, Zhang, Helin: > > > From: Wu, Jingjing > > > > Because VF multi-queues can be supported, l3fwd can run on vf. > > > > Suggest to remove the l3fwd-vf example. > > > Totally agree with this! > > > But we need the confirmation from validation guys of that l3fwd works > > > quite well on VF with all NICs (e.g. i350, 82599, x550, xl710, and fm10k). > > > > Helin, any new from validation?