Nice guess :) After adding check with rte_mempool_empty(), as soon as I
enable second port for reading, it shows that the mempool is empty. Thank
you for help!
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Bruce Richardson <
bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:03:25PM +0100, Ne
So, since mempool is multi-consumer (by default), if one is used to
configure queues on multiple NICs that have different socket owners, then
mbuf allocation will fail? But if 2 NICs have the socket owner, everything
should work fine? Since I'm talking about 2 ports on the same NIC, they
must have
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 03:03:25PM +0100, Newman Poborsky wrote:
> So, since mempool is multi-consumer (by default), if one is used to
> configure queues on multiple NICs that have different socket owners, then
> mbuf allocation will fail? But if 2 NICs have the socket owner, everything
> should wo
ote:
> Hi Newman,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Newman Poborsky
> > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:34 AM
> > To: dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [dpdk-dev] one worker reading multiple ports
> &
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 05:10:51PM +0100, Newman Poborsky wrote:
> Thank you for your answer.
>
> I just realized that the reason the rte_eth_rx_burst() returns 0 is because
> inside ixgbe_recv_pkts() this fails:
> nmb = rte_rxmbuf_alloc(rxq->mb_pool); => nmb is NULL
>
> Does this mean that ever
Hi,
is it possible to use one worker thread (one lcore) to read packets from
multiple ports?
When I start 2 workers and assign each one to read from different ports
(with rte_eth_rx_burst()) everything works fine, but if I assign one
worker to read packets from 2 ports, rte_eth_rx_burst() retur
Hi Newman,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Newman Poborsky
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 8:34 AM
> To: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] one worker reading multiple ports
>
> Hi,
>
> is it possible to
7 matches
Mail list logo
