---
examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_hlm_sse.h | 38 +++---
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_hlm_sse.h
b/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_hlm_sse.h
index d3388da..891ae2e 100644
--- a/examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_hlm_sse.h
+++
Od: Thomas Monjalon
Wys?ane: 15 marca 2016 21:49
Do: Czekaj, Maciej
DW: dev at dpdk.org; tomaszx.kulasek at intel.com
Temat: Re: [PATCH v2] l3fwd: Fix compilation & enable exact match mode on ARM.
Hi Maciej,
2016-03-15 21:05, Maciej.Czekaj at
Hi,
2016-03-16 00:23, Maciej Czekaj:
> ---
> examples/l3fwd/l3fwd_em_hlm_sse.h | 38 +++---
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
You've forgotten the explanation with the Signed-off.
Thanks
Hi Bharath,
> 2) Is the above supported for 82599 controller? If it is supported in the
> NIC,
> please provide the steps to enable.
Talking about 82599, VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported. Only
broadcast and multicast can be supported.
>
> Thanks,
> Bharath Paulraj
Tested-by: Min Cao
- Tested Commit: 1b9cb73ecef109593081ab9efbd9d1429607bb99
- OS: Fedora20 3.11.10-301.fc20.x86_64
- GCC: gcc (GCC) 4.8.3
- CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2658 v3 @ 2.20GHz
- NIC: Niantic
- Default x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc configuration
- Prerequisites:
- Total 42 cases, 42
Tested-by: Min Cao
- Tested Commit: 1b9cb73ecef109593081ab9efbd9d1429607bb99
- OS: Fedora20 3.11.10-301.fc20.x86_64
- GCC: gcc (GCC) 4.8.3
- CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2658 v3 @ 2.20GHz
- NIC: Niantic
- Default x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc configuration
- Prerequisites:
- Total 42 cases, 42
Tested-by: Min Cao
- Tested Commit: 1b9cb73ecef109593081ab9efbd9d1429607bb99
- OS: Fedora20 3.11.10-301.fc20.x86_64
- GCC: gcc (GCC) 4.8.3
- CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2658 v3 @ 2.20GHz
- NIC: Niantic
- Default x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc configuration
- Prerequisites:
- Total 42 cases, 42
HI Jianbo,
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jianbo Liu
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:26 PM
> To: Zhang, Helin; Ananyev, Konstantin; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: Jianbo Liu
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ixgbe: avoid unnessary break when checking
l3fwd does not compile with HASH_MULTI_LOOKUP.
2 issues:
* in 64d395 mask0 changed type from xmm_t to rte_xmm_t
-> use x field from rte_xmm_t
* in dc81eb dst_port parameter changed to uint32_t
-> change uint16_t dst_port to uin32_t dsp_port
Signed-off-by: Maciej Czekaj
---
We have to reset the virtio net hdr at virtio_enqueue_offload()
before, due to all mbufs share a single virtio_hdr structure:
struct virtio_net_hdr_mrg_rxbuf virtio_hdr = {{0, }, 0};
foreach (mbuf) {
virtio_enqueue_offload(mbuf, _hdr.hdr);
copy
On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the work.
>>
>>
>> This is slow data path communication implementation based on existing KNI.
>>
>> Difference is: librte_kni converted into a PMD, kdp
Hi Wenzhuo,
On 16 March 2016 at 14:06, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> HI Jianbo,
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jianbo Liu
>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:26 PM
>> To: Zhang, Helin; Ananyev, Konstantin; dev at dpdk.org
>> Cc: Jianbo Liu
>>
On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the work.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is slow data path communication implementation based on existing KNI.
>>>
>>>
On 3/15/2016 7:14 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-01-05 07:16, Xie, Huawei:
>> On 1/5/2016 2:42 PM, Xie, Huawei wrote:
>>> This patch removes the internal lockless enqueue implmentation.
>>> DPDK doesn't support receiving/transmitting packets from/to the same
>>> queue. Vhost PMD wraps vhost
On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the work.
This is slow data path
On 3/14/2016 6:56 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:19:18AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> This patch series uses virtio negotiated features to allow for
>> more packets to be queued to host even though the default QEMU/KVM
>> virtio queue is very small 256 elements.
>>
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:20:37AM +, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> On 3/15/2016 7:14 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-01-05 07:16, Xie, Huawei:
> >> On 1/5/2016 2:42 PM, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> >>> This patch removes the internal lockless enqueue implmentation.
> >>> DPDK doesn't support
Issue:
When define CONFIG_RTE_LIBTRE_I40E_RX_ALLOW_BULK_ALLOC as n in config file,
there will be a build error:
?40e_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc' undeclared
Now DPDK i40e PMD use the Macro variable to choose whether to define the
related bulk recv functions, but for selection of the RX function,PMD
Issue:
When define CONFIG_RTE_LIBTRE_I40E_RX_ALLOW_BULK_ALLOC as n in config file,
there will be a build error:
'i40e_recv_pkts_bulk_alloc' undeclared
Now DPDK i40e PMD use the Macro variable to choose whether to define the
related bulk recv functions, but for selection of the RX function,PMD
On 3/16/2016 8:22 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> This patch sent to keep record of latest status of the
2016-03-16 10:26, Ferruh Yigit:
> On 3/16/2016 8:22 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >> On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>> On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> > This patch
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:22:05AM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> This patch sent to keep record of
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:46 AM
> To: Yigit, Ferruh
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Panu Matilainen ; David
> Marchand ; Zhang, Helin
>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] slow data path
On 3/16/2016 10:45 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-16 10:26, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 3/16/2016 8:22 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> On 3/9/2016
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:51:53PM +0800, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> Hi Wenzhuo,
>
> On 16 March 2016 at 14:06, Lu, Wenzhuo wrote:
> > HI Jianbo,
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Jianbo Liu
> >> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 10:26 PM
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 06:58:45PM +0200, Lazaros Koromilas wrote:
> Issuing a zero objects dequeue with a single consumer has no effect.
> Doing so with multiple consumers, can get more than one thread to succeed
> the compare-and-set operation and observe starvation or even deadlock in
> the
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Document1.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 3050 bytes
Desc: Document1.zip
URL:
<http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/attachments/20160316/5959eb3e/attachment.zip>
Poking a bit on autotest revealed a few shortcomings in the lpm allocation path.
Thanks to the feedback to the first revision of the patches here v2:
*updates in v2*
- lpm/lpm6 patches split
- following dpdk coding guidelines regarding single line if's
- adding singed-off and acked-bys gathered
In certain autotests lpm->max_rules turned out to be non initialized.
That was caused by a failing allocation for lpm->rules_tbl in rte_lpm6_create.
It then left the function via goto exit with lpm freed, but still a pointer
value being set.
In case of an allocation failure it resets lpm to NULL
lpm6 autotests failed with the default alloc of 512M Memory.
While >=2500M was a workaround it became clear while debugging that it
had a leak.
One could see a lot of output like:
LPM Test tests6[i]: FAIL
LPM: LPM memory allocation failed
It turned out that in rte_lpm6_free
- lpm might not be
Fixing lpm6 regarding a similar issue showed that that in rte_lpm_free lpm
might not be freed if it didn't find a te (early return)
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt
---
lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 8 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Document1.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 4248 bytes
Desc: Document1.zip
URL:
<http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/attachments/20160316/16dfb3a8/attachment.zip>
Hello,
When taking a snapshot of a running VM instance, using OpenStack
"nova image-create", I noticed that one OVS pmd-thread eventually
failed in DPDK rte_vhost_dequeue_burst() with repeating log entries:
compute-0-6 ovs-vswitchd[38172]: VHOST_DATA: Failed to allocate
memory for mbuf.
On 03/15/2016 01:25 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> Internal lpm structures are not properly freed. Seen with the
> lpm6 autotest.
>
> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz
> ---
> lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 3 +++
> lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm6.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
Self-nack,
Hi Christian,
On 03/16/2016 01:33 PM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Fixing lpm6 regarding a similar issue showed that that in rte_lpm_free lpm
> might not be freed if it didn't find a te (early return)
>
> Acked-by: Bruce Richardson
> Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt
> ---
>
On 03/16/2016 12:26 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 8:22 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 03/14/2016 05:32 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 11:17 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>> This
Thanks Oliver, the bad thing was that I forgot to CC dpdk-dev last friday.
I just resubmitted correcting that mistake.
I think it should now just be down to the re-review and apply of Bruce.
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:11 PM,
On 03/16/2016 01:13 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 10:45 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
>> 2016-03-16 10:26, Ferruh Yigit:
>>> On 3/16/2016 8:22 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 03/16/2016 10:19 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 7:26 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 03/14/2016
Hi,
looking at it I think we have intersections but also parts of yours that I
missed.
More than that while applying your changes I found other potential
use-after free cases.
I'll wrap that all up together in a v3 of my series.
Christian Ehrhardt
Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server
Canonical Ltd
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 03:24:43PM +, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:27:59PM +0100, Adrien Mazarguil wrote:
> > From: Yaacov Hazan
> >
> > VLAN insertion is done in software by the PMD by default unless
> > CONFIG_RTE_LIBRTE_MLX5_VERBS_VLAN_INSERTION is enabled and
2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen:
> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel
> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and
> that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or not)
> ideas around the topic.
I think the
In certain autotests lpm->max_rules turned out to be non initialized.
That was caused by a failing allocation for lpm->rules_tbl in rte_lpm6_create.
It then left the function via goto exit with lpm freed, but still a pointer
value being set.
In case of an allocation failure it resets lpm to NULL
Poking a bit on autotest revealed a few shortcomings in the lpm allocation path.
Thanks to the feedback to the first revision of the patches here v2.
Also Oliver Matz spotted similar issues and made me aware - thanks!
Integrating them revealed even more use after free / leak issues.
*updates in
lpm6 autotests failed with the default alloc of 512M Memory.
While >=2500M was a workaround it became clear while debugging that it
had a leak.
One could see a lot of output like:
LPM Test tests6[i]: FAIL
LPM: LPM memory allocation failed
It turned out that in rte_lpm6_free
- lpm might not be
Fixing lpm6 regarding a similar issue showed that that in rte_lpm_free lpm
might not be freed if it didn't find a te (early return)
Acked-by: Bruce Richardson
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt
---
lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git
There were further chances for a use after free by returning an already freed
pointer in rte_lpm_create for v20 and v1604.
Along that is also makes the RTE_LOG messages of the failed allocations unique.
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt
---
lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4
As found in rte_lpm6_free the two lpm interfaces rte_lpm_free_v20 and
rte_lpm_free_v1604 had a leak.
rte_lpm_free_v20 might have missed to free rules_tbl
rte_lpm_free_v1604 due to an early exit might have missed to free
rules_tbl and lpm itself.
Signed-off-by: Christian Ehrhardt
---
Hi,
I'm done comparing our two patches and just submitted a v3 of my series
based on that.
I found even more use after free and leaks than we had before.
Patch series has grown to 5 patches now.
At least my gmail groups subsequent git send-email posts weirdly, let me
know if you are in any
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 03:40:10PM +0100, Jan Medala wrote:
> This is a PMD for the Amazon ethernet ENA family.
> The driver operates variety of ENA adapters through feature negotiation
> with the adapter and upgradable commands set.
> ENA driver handles PCI Physical and Virtual ENA functions.
>
On 03/16/2016 03:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen:
>> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel
>> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and
>> that's why I've been asking questions and throwing around crazy (or
2016-03-16 17:03, Panu Matilainen:
> On 03/16/2016 03:58 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-03-16 15:15, Panu Matilainen:
> >> What I really would like to see is a clear policy regarding kernel
> >> modules in DPDK. I certainly am in no position to dictate one, and
> >> that's why I've been
Hi Lu,
Many thanks for your response. Again I have few more queries.
If VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported then can't we implement a
Layer 2 bridging functionality using intel virtualization technologies? Or
Is there any other way, say tweeking some hardware registers or drivers,
which
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Document2.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 3083 bytes
Desc: Document2.zip
URL:
<http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/attachments/20160316/c16cf4b5/attachment.zip>
Hi Bharath,
I believe security is the only reason.
But I think there?s another way to implement a l2 bridge. Include Michael, he
can share some experience.
Thanks.
Hi Bharath
For your question of "why intel does not support unicast promiscuos mode?", I'd
ask Aaron or Greg to give answers.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
Helin
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16,
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:49:04 +0100
David Marchand wrote:
> Before 2.2.0 release, while preparing for more changes in eal (and fixing
> a problem reported by Roger M. [1]), I came up with this (part of) patchset
> that tries to make the pci code more compact and easier to read.
Hello David,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:25:08AM +, Xie, Huawei wrote:
> On 3/14/2016 6:56 PM, Richardson, Bruce wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:19:18AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> This patch series uses virtio negotiated features to allow for
> >> more packets to be queued to host even
The patches from dpdk-next-net/rel_16_04 are now in dpdk/master for RC1.
More driver changes may be applied in dpdk-next-net for RC2,
especially for new drivers.
2016-03-15 07:29, David Marchand:
> Here is a patchset for little cleanups and a fix on newly introduced pci
> ioport api.
> The last patch fixes a regression reported by Mauricio V. [1].
>
> [1]: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033922.html
Applied, thanks
2016-02-25 12:30, Mauricio V?squez:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to connect two virtual machines through Open vSwitch using
> vhost-user ports, on the host side everything looks fine.
> When using the standard virtio drivers both virtual machines are able to
> exchange traffic, but when I load the
2016-03-14 12:22, Fan Zhang:
> This patch fixes the incorrect IP header in ACL table test.
It is not really a header but a 5-tuple.
Please could you elaborate on the issue?
A "Fixes:" reference is missing.
Thanks
2016-03-14 13:44, Jasvinder Singh:
> This patch updates the release notes with the features that
> have been added to ip_pipeline application.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jasvinder Singh
> Acked-by: Cristian Dumitrescu
Applied, thanks
Please try to integrate the release notes updates when doing
the
Intel has not supported promiscuous mode for virtual functions due to the
security concerns mentioned below.
There will be upstream support in an upcoming Linux kernel for setting virtual
functions as "trusted" and when that is available then Intel will allow virtual
functions to enter unicast
A new DPDK release candidate is ready for testing:
http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/tag/?id=v16.04-rc1
This is the first release candidate for DPDK 16.04.
As the new versioning scheme suggests, this version must
be released during April of year 2016.
We have 3 weeks to make the validation and
Hello dev at dpdk.org
In section "3.3.5.6 Update link mode" of the XL710 datasheet Rev2.4
there is a description on how to change the link mode configuration of
the NIC to enable support for breakout cable (4x10). This can also be
accomplished via the qcu utility provided by intel.
What I am
65 matches
Mail list logo
